^ 


K,..  / 


OF  Tiir 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 


SAMUEL   AG  NEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA 

q4^o 


Division /A, 

Case.  I 


D        Booh,  .N» |. 


sec  ^ 


AN  ESSAY 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION. 

IN  WHICH  THE  SEVERAL  SOURCES  OF 

EVIDENCE 

iir^E  EXAMINED,  AND  APPLIED  TO  THE  INTERESTING  DOCTRINE  OF 

REDEMPTION^ 

IN    ITS    RELATION    TO    THE    GOVERNMENT 
AND  MORAL  ATTRIBUTES 

OE    THE 

DEITY. 

BY  ASA  SHINN,  MINISTER  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 

«^  Truth  never  was  indebted  to  a  lie"— Fomwi;'. 

«  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free." 
John  viii.  32. 

"  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiv^- 
tiess  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace."— £p/i.  i,  7i 


BALTIMORE:  "^ 

PUBLISHED  BY  NEAL,  WILLS  AND  COLE. 

Senjamin  Edes,  printer. 


1813. 


DISTRICT  OF  MARYLAND,  ss. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  on  this  fourteenth  day  of 
September,  in  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  the  Indepen- 
dence of  the  United  States  of  America,  Asa  Shinn  of 
said  district,  hath  deposited  in  this  office,  the  title  of  a 
bookj  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  author,  in  the  words  and  fi- 
gures following,  to  wit: 

"An  Essay  on  the  Plan  of  Salvation,  in  which  the  several  sources 
of  Evidence  are  examined,  and  applied  to  the  interesting  doctrine 
of  Redemption,  in  its  relation  to  the  government  and  moral  attri- 
butes of  the  Deity.  By  Asa  Shinn,  minister  of  the  gospel." 
"Truth  never  was  indebted  to  a  lie." — Young. 
"Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free." 
John  viii.  32. 

"In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace." — Eph.  i.  7. 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
entitled,  "  an  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing 
the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books  to  the  authors  and  proprie- 
tors of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned;"  and  also 
to  the  act  entitled,  "  an  act  supplementary  to  the  act  entitled, "  an 
act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of 
maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such 
copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned,"  and  extendingthe  ben- 
efits thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etching  histo- 
rical and  other  prints. 

PHILIP  MOORE, 
Clerk  of  the  District  of  Maryland. 


PREFACE. 


THE  following  Essay  was  written,  and  is  now  offered  to  the 
public,  from  a  full  and  deliberate  conviction  that  truth,  rightly 
understood  and  believed,  tends  to  the  general  and  permanent  hap- 
piness of  mankind; — that  the  doctrines  therein  contained  are  true; 
—and  that  they  are  truths  in  which  we  are  all  particularly  inter- 
ested, and  which  cannot  be  too  attentively  examined,  or  too  gener- 
ally understood.  If  either  of  these  positions  be  erroneous,  it  must 
be  confessed  that  error  has  had  an  influence  in  giving  birth  to  the 
present  publication.  But  admitting  them  to  be  correct,  they  are 
deemed  sufficient  to  furnish  justifiable  motives  for  publishing  this 
book,  nothwithstanding  its  defects,  or  the  obscurity  of  its  author. 

The  general  design  of  the  Essay,  as  signified  by  the  title,  is  to 
point  out  and  ascertain,  with  some  tolerable  degree  of  accuracy, 
the  rules  of  evidence  by  which  alone  the  human  mind  can  be  suc- 
cessful iu  the  search  of  truth; — in  order  especially,  to  apply  those 
rules,  or  to  use  them  with  attentive  regularity,  in  the  investigation 
of  the  important  and  great  principles  of  Christianity,  concerning 
the  redemption  of  mankind,  and  the  general  plan  of  saving  them 
from  sin  and  misery,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  entitled  au 
Essay  on  the  Plan  of  Salvation,  because  the  design  of  it  was,  not 
to  investigate  precisely  and  exclusively,  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment, but  to  view  that  interesting  doctrine  in  its  connexion  with 
the  general  plan  of  restoring  fallen  creatures,  and  in  its  relation 
to  the  moral  attributes  and  government  of  the  great  Creator. 
The  reader  will  find  that  one  whole  chapter  was  written  before 
the  subject  of  atonement  was  introduced;  and  that  chapter  may  be 
considered,  by  some,  to  be  totally  foreign  from  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, and  to  contain  matter  which  cannot,  with  propriety,  be  in- 
cluded under  such  a  title.  It  may  be  necessary,  for  the  sake  of 
such  readers, to  obviate  the  objection  in  this  place,  lest  an  unhappy 
prepossession  should  cause  them  to  stumble  at  the  very  threshold, 
and  to  cast  the  book  by  with  inditterence,  before  they  come  to  the 
main  subject  to  which  their  attention  is  solicited. 

It  must  be  acknowledged  by  every  reflecting  mind,  that  a  clear 
view  of  the  method  by  which  truth  is  to  be  discovered  and  ascer- 
tained, is  of  great  advantage  in  the  pursuit  of  it;  and  that  confusion 
in  our  conceptions  of  the  proper  grounds  of  credence,  is  a  very  gene- 
ral and  fatal  source  of  error.  A  man  is  in  little  danger  of  taking  his 
enemy  for  his  friend,  or  his  friend  for  his  enemy,  who  has  a  clear 
and  steady  conception  of  the  constituent  principles  of  friendship 
and  of  enmity;  because  he  can  apply  those  principles  to  each  parti- 
cular case,  without  much  danger  of  being  mistaken;  but  he  who  is 
at  no  pains  to  regulate  his  view  of  this  subject,  is  liable  to  take 


( 


PREFACE. 

th^t  for  a  proof  of  friendship  which  is  a  proof  of  the  contrary, 
and  thus  to  expose  himself  to  the  insidious  arts  of  intrigue  and 
deception.  In  like  manner,  while  we  remain  unacquainted  with 
the  rules  of  evidence,  or  have  but  an  indistinct  and  obscure  view 
of  them,  we  are  liable  to  take  that  for  a  sign  of  truth  which  is  a 
sign  of  falsehood,  and  to  wander  in  the  wilderness  of  delusion, 
till  our  adherence  to  sophistical  evidence  will  become  habitual; 
and  then  surely  we  shall  be  in  a  fair  way  to  fake  bitter  for  sweety 
and  sweet  for  bitter; — darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness. 

It  cannot  therefore  be  justly  considered  amatterof  inditterence, 
much  less  of  censure,  that  in  an  Essay  upon  the  great  doctrines  of 
religion  and  morality,  on  which  our  present  and  eternal  happiness 
depends,  an  attempt  should  first  be  made  to  distinguish  betweea 
true  and  false  evidence;  for  how  can  truth  be  discovered  or  prov- 
ed, but  by  the  use  df  sound  and  genuine  rules  of  proof,  and  by 
carefully  guarding  against  those  which  are  false  and  delusive? 
And  how  can  this  be  done,  if  we  be  at  no  pains  to  distinguish  the 
one  from  the  other? 

Nor  can  itbe  justly  said,  that  such  an  examination  of  evidence 
belongs  not  to  the  plan  of  salvation:  for  is  it  not  God's  method  of 
saving  sinners,  to  bestow  his  spiritual  blessings  upon  them  in  eon- 
sequence  of  their  embracing  the  truth?  And  how  can  truth  be  dis- 
covered or  believed,  but  by  means  of  that  evidence  which  distin- 
guishes it  from  falsehood?  AH  men  will  agree  surely,  that  truth 
cannot  be  embraced  ivithout  being  distinguished  from  falsehood: 
and  how  can  this  be  done,  if  we  are  indifferent  to  the  mer/iorf  by 
which  they  are  to  be  distinguished?  As  the  plan  of  saving  sinners 
implies,  therefore,  our  understanding,  believing  and  obeying  the 
truth;  and  as  truth  cannot  be  understood,  believed,  nor  consequent- 
ly obeyed,  but  by  means  of  proper  evidence,  this  first  chapter, 
upon  the  nature  and  rules  of  evidence;  and  the  distinction  between 
the  sound  and  the  unsound,  properly  belongs  to  an  Essay  on  the 
plan  of  Salvation. 

It  is  true,  that  in  illustrating  this  subject,  notice  has  been  taken 
of  our  intellectual  or  judging  faculties,  and  some  may  perhaps  ob- 
ject, that  a  disposition  has  been  manifested  to  wander  too  far  into 
the  regions  of  philosophy;  but  when  we  consider  that  some  philo- 
sophers have  done  more  to  involve  the  evidence  of  truth  in  confu- 
sion and  obscurity,  than  almost  any  other  men,  it  can  hardly  be 
thought  improper  to  follow  them  in  their  ingenious  speculations, 
so  far  at  least,  as  to  detect  the  stratagems,  by  which  they  have 
laboured  to  conceal  the  evidence  of  religious  truth,  and  of  moral 
obligation,  from  the  human  mind.  Infidelity,  it  is  well  known, 
affects  to  come  forth  under  the  sanction  of  philosophy:  It  eagerly 
embraces  the  ingenious  theories  of  some  acute  metaphysicians,  as 
the  ground  of  its  opposition  to  Christianity;  therefore  we  cannot 
disarm  our  unbelieving  opponents,  without  attacking  the  hypothe- 
ses of  that  science,  false hj  so  called,  on  which  they  take  their  stand, 
and  by  means  of  which  they  have  imposed  upon  the  understand- 
ings of  the  unwary,  have  made  a  plausible  defence  against  the 
dictates  of  conscience  and  reason,  and  have  been  but  too  successful 
in  the  establishment  of  a  pernicious  scepticism. 


PREFACE. 

But  it  is  yaiu  to  hope,  that  all  the  objections  can  be  obviated  in 
a  preface,  which  will  be  apt  to  occur  against  the  doctrines  of  this 
Essay;  for  it  is  extremely  probable,  not  to  say  morally  certain,  that 
there  will  be  some  hundreds.  And  for  this  plain  reason,  that  the 
author,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  has  been  governed  by  acon- 
Tiction  that  he  ought  to  follow  evidence  wherever  it  should  lead, 
without  ever  suppressing  or  departing  from  any  part  of  it,  through 
the  fear  of  deviating  from  the  sentiments  of  any  man,  or  any  num- 
ber of  men  in  the  world.  Hence  one  part  of  the  subject  may  differ 
from  one  sentiment,  long  sanctioned  by  authority;  another  part 
from  another;  and  upon  the  whole,  every  denomination  of  chris- 
tians may  peradveuture  find  something  that  will  be  esteemed  ob- 
JBctionabie. 

Indeed,  there  is  reason  to  presume  that  some  who  entirely  ap- 
prove the  leading  doctrines  here  advanced,  and  whose  friendship 
the  writer  of  these  pages  has  long  had  the  happiness  to  enjoy, 
will  be  obstructed  in  their  progress  through  the  Essay,  by  some 
considerable  objections.  Without  attempting  to  predict  what  par- 
ticular points  will  be  considered  erroneous,  it  may  suffice  to  notice 
objections  that  are  more  general.  These  may  perhaps  be  the  fol- 
lowing: (l.)  That  the  subject  is  treated  in  a  manner  too  abstruse 
and  metaphysical,  and  (2.)  that  the  peculiar  boldness  and  novelty 
of  several  parts  of  it,  ar»  of  a  suspicious  character,  and  indicate 
a  strong  presumption,  that  some  very  serious  errors  have  been 
adopted. 

In  answering  the  first,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  great 
care  and  pains  were  used  to  make  the  subject  as  simple  and  intel- 
ligible as  its  nature  would  possibly  admit  of;  and  though  some 
things  have  been  introduced  that  are  abstruse  in  their  nature,  be- 
cause it  was  impossible  otherwise  to  do  any  justice  to  the  subject, 
yet  it  is  presumed,  there  are  few  things  introduced,  but  such  as 
may  be  understood  by  common  minds,  provided  their  method  of 
reading  and  understanding  subjects  be  that  of  attention  and  dili- 
gent thinking.  And  1  hope  no  person  would  request  a  man  to 
write  a  book  that  may  be  understood  without  thinking.  Must  it 
not  be  a  very  superficial  and  frivolous  performance,  that  can  be 
comprehended  by  a  careless  inattentive  glance,  that  is  hardly  suf- 
ficient to  keep  the  reader  from  falling  into  a  profound  sleep?  And 
however  intelligible,  conclusive,  or  important  a  treatise  may  be,  it 
will  contain  nothing  clear,  convincing  or  interesting,  to  an  un- 
thinking mind:  because  his  intellectual  supineness  renders  him 
incapable  of  entering  into  a  subject,  or  of  properly  relishing  any 
truths  it  may  contain.  The  discourses  of  our  Saviour  ajid  his 
apostles  are  remarkably  simple  and  perspicuous;  yet  the  man  who 
presumes  he  has  a  right  understanding  of  them,  without  close  and 
habitual  meditation,  is  in  a  greater  error,  perhaps,  than  those  of 
whom  he  is  disposed  to  complain. 

As  to  the  second  objection,  the  candid  and  friendly  reader  is 
assured,  that  great  solicitude  occupied  the  mind  of  the  writer, 
through  the  whole  of  this  Essay,  to  guard  against  error:  if  the 
reader  will  devote  an  equal  degree  of  attention  to  discover  and 
point  out  erroneous  opinions,  that  was  employed  to  avoid  them,  he 
y/ill  doubtless  be  entitled  to  a  fair  hearing;  and  whatever  a,id  his 


PREFACE. 

friendly  strictures  may  afford,  will  be  received  with  gratitude.^ — 
But  as  to  those  persons,  if  any  such  there  be,  who  upon  the  tirst 
careless  glance  are  entirely  prepared,  and  think  themselves  fully 
qualified,  to  fix  the  charge  of  heresy  upon  a  publication,  their 
sovereign  and  masterly  decision,  1  think,  is  beneath  the  attention 
of  every  reflecting  mind.  Their  great  and  capable  minds,  it 
would  seem,  are  under  no  necessity  to  submit  to  the  drudgery  of 
close  and  laborious  thinking,  in  order  to  distinguish  truth  from 
falsehood;  but  are  at  once  prepared,  with  intuitive  infallibility,  to 
judge  of  every  book  and  of  every  subject,  without  the  pains  of  ex- 
amination, or  even  almost  without  reading  or  hearing  them. — 
AVhat  is  the  evidence  on  which  they  decide?  Such  as  the  follow- 
ing: the  thing  is  a  novelty: — I  never  heard  it  before: — my  father 
never  believed  it: — It  is  not  believed  by  our  party: — I  am  sure  it  is 
false. — Hoping  the  reader  will  pardon  me  for  supposing  it  possi- 
ble, that  there  may  be  persons  of  this  sort  in  the  world,  1  drop  the 
present  allusion,  and  proceed  to  notice  a  few  other  particulars. 

It  is  not  impossible,  that  some  persons,  into  whose  hands  this 
hook  may  chance  to  fall,  will  be  grievously  offended,  because  so 
little  deference  appears  to  be  given  to  creeds,  established  by  the 
authority  of  divines,  or  to  the  opinions  of  the  learned;  especially 
to  those  of  philosophers  and  doctors  of  law  and  divinity.  'Ihey 
may  perhaps  think  this  performance,  however  destitute  of  the 
grace  of  novelty  in  other  particulars,  affords  a  new  species  of  im- 
pudence and  self-sufficiency. 

It  is  indeed  a  very  pleasing  reflection  to  an  enlightened  mind, 
that  there  are  many  men  of  learning  in  the  world: — men  who  have, 
a  complete  knowledge  of  the  different  languages,  as  also  of  sci- 
ence in  general; — it  would  be  a  blessing  if  their  number  was  in- 
creased ten  fold;— and  every  friend  to  human  improvement  must 
consider  it  desirable  to  be  possessed  of  their  advantages: — but 
though  a  degree  of  deference  is  due  to  their  authority,  yet  if  any 
one  should  conclude  that  authority  alone  is  a  sutficient  ground  for 
all  our  opinions,  it  might  not  be  improper  to  propose  to  him  a  few 
plain  queries. 

1.  Are  divines  and  philosophers  the  only  men  to  whom  God  has 
given  the  right  to  think  and  judge  for  themselves.^  2.  Must  all 
persons  who  have  been  unhappily  deprived  of  their  advantages, 
either  hold  their  peace,  or  frame  all  their  opinions  according  to 
the  exact  model  furnished  by  their  learned  superiors,  however  the 
clearest  evidence  may  seem  to  lead  to  a  contrary  conclusion.^  3. 
Is  a  man  incapable  of  reasoning  or  judging  correctly,  because  he 
is  not  a  critic  in  foreign  languages,  or  has  not  become  master  of 
astronomy  or  navigation?  4.  If  any  pers(»n  were  charged  with  hav- 
ing no  independence, — -of  framing  all  his  opinions  according  to  the 
fashion  or  authority  of  great  men,  without  having  any  opinion  of 
his  own, — would  he  not  consider  it  a  reproach,  and  be  disposed  to 
repel  the  charge.^*  5.  Is  it  not  very  inconsistent  then,  for  any  per- 
son to  complain  of  another,  for  using  that  freedom  of  thought  and 
independence,  the  want  of  which  cannot  be  imputed  to  himself^ 
w  ilhout  being  received  as  a  reproach,  or  even  as  an  insult.'* 

The  reader,  it  is  hoped,  bearing  these  queries  in  mind,  will  pe- 
ruse the  following  sheets  w  ith  some  indulgence,  and  will  not  be 


PREFACE. 

fiasty  in  attributing  that  to  a  want  of  respect  for  great  men,  whieU 
originated  only  from  a  desire  to  avoid  the  unreasonable  preposses- 
sions of  fashion  and  authority. 

As  to  the  manner,  or  execution  of  this  work,  it  is  not  to  be 
doubted  that  the  judicious  reader  will  meet  with  many  deiiciencies; 
some  from  errors  of  the  press,  some  from  the  inability  of  the  au- 
thor, and  others  from  the  peculiar  disadvantages  under  which  he 
laboured.  A  candid  and  liberal  indulgence  is  solicited;  and  if  any 
harsh  or  uncharitable  expressions  have  been  permitted  to  pass,  it 
is  hoped,  that,  being  imputed  to  inadvertency,  more  than  malevo- 
lence, by  impartial  and  generous  minds,  they  will  be  forgiven. 

This  book  may  be  thought  by  some  to  copy  too  much  after  the 
modes  of  expression  used  by  moralists,  philosophers,  or  even  So- 
einians;  and  though  the  sentiments  may  be  true,  yet  the  expres- 
sions may  be  thought  not  sufficiently  evangelical.  Instance,  the 
frequent  use  of  the  words  virtue,  rectitude,  morality,  &c. 

This  has  been  done  for  the  sake  of  precision  and  perspicuity. 
Those  words,  though  sometimes  limited  to  external  conduct  only, 
are  frequently  used  to  signify  the  whole  of  christian  righteousness, 
obedience  and  holiness.  Does  not  the  law  of  God  enjoin  perfect  holi- 
ness? And  is  it  uot  truly  denominated  the  moral  law?  Then  does 
not  the  word  morality,  comprehend  the  whole  of  that  law  which 
enjoins  the  perfect  love  of  God,  and  of  all  mankind?  And  why 
should  christians,  or  men  of  reason,  dispute  about  words,  and  be 
otfended  at  each  other  for  particular  modes  of  expression?  To  re- 
ject truth  on  this  account,  is  like  a  person  refusing  to  partake  of 
the  common  sustenance  of  life,  because  it  is  not  served  up  in  that 
kind  of  table  furniture  which  is  most  agreeable  to  his  fancy. 

And  suppose  there  should  be  a  considerable  deficiency  of  style, 
or  even  a  few  serious  errors  of  opinion,  if  the  doctrines  are  true  in 
the  general,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  they  surely  ought  not 
to  be  rejected  with  disgust  or  indiiference,  because  a  few  errors  es- 
caped attention,  and  unhappily  found  their  way  into  this  publica- 
tion. To  reject  a  treatise  in  this  way,  is  to  act  like  those  persons 
who  reject  or  despise  a  whole  religious  community  as  hypocrites, 
because  a  few  of  its  members  have  been  found  to  be  deceitful. 
Would  such  an  objector  be  willing  his  own  character  should  be 
treated  in  this  manner,  and  be  unequivocally  exploded  as  a  bad 
character,  because  a  few  blemishes  had  been  discovered?  Reader, 
wilt  thou  slay  the  truth  ivith  the  error,  and  that  the  truth  should  be 
as  the  error?  That  be  Jar  from  thee.  Shall  not  every  candid  person 
imitate  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  in  doing  right? 

But  if  Dr.  Brown  be  correct  in  his  views  of  mankind,  this  will 
be  a  very  unfashionable,  and  therefore  unpopular  book:  "As  few 
men  have  the  courage"  says  he,  "to  sacrifice  their  interest,  their 
pleasure,  or  their  fame  to  their  regard  for  truth  and  justice,  the 
great  concern  is,  to  speak  and  act,  not  as  reason  and  virtue  dictate, 
but  as  interested  views,  in  conforming  to  the  opinions,  humours, 
and  manners  of  others,  may  require.  For,  how  is  tlie  favour  of  the 
greater  part  of  men  to  be  caught,  but  by  adulation  and  servile  res- 
pect? And  what  so  efficacious  for  incurring  their  displeasure,  as 
that  manly  and  generous  conduct  and  conversation,  v\hich  indicate 
less  solicitude  to  secure  favour,  than  to  enjoy  self-esteem,  a  greater 


PREFACE. 

iove  of  mankind  than  respect  for  individuals?  Hence,  mostih'eB 
Lave  an  opinion  for  every  company  they  frequent,  and  change 
their  sentiments  oftener  than  their  dress. — Politeness  is  making 
constant  demands— propriety  imposing  new  laws — men  are  al- 
ways the  slaves  of  custom,  and  seldom  follow  the  bent  of  their 
own  genius  and  temper.  Society  is  a  species  of  stage,  on  which 
the  actors  appear  in  their  turns,  and  play  their  parts.  He  is  most 
applauded,  and  bears  the  highest  price,  who  appears  least  him- 
self, and  personates  most  successfully  the  assumed  character. 

"  The  man  who  presumes  to  think,  to  speak,  or  to  act,  ditierent- 
ly  from  the  generality,  even  in  matters  of  singular  importance  to 
the  common  good,  is  looked  upon  as  an  unsocial  savage  being, 
who,  separating  himself  from  his  species,  is  entitled  to  no  share  of 
their  regard  and  afteetjon.  It  is  well,  if  he  is  not  exposed  to  the 
severest  effects  of  resentment  and  hatred."  Browii's  JV*atural 
Equality  of  Men,  page  130  and  134. 

According  to  this  bold  representation,  which  Dr.  Brown  has 
had  the  assurance  to  make,  it  would  appear,  that  an  honest  mau 
is  not  to  expect  much  esteem  in  this  world;  but  that,  in  order  to  be 
popular,  a  man's  chief  concern  must  be  to  conform  himself  to  the 
fashion.  Such  a  concern  had  little  inftuence  in  producing  the  pre- 
sent Essay,  and  therefore,  judging  by  the  above  representation,  it 
is  not  difficult  to  foresee  its  fate. 

THE  AUTHOR, 

Baltimoref  September  ±2,  1813. 


IISTRODUCTION. 


l^EAViNG  the  busy  multitude  to  pursue  their  momentary 
schemes.  1  sit  down,  thoughtful  and  retired,  to  consider  myself, 
my  origin,  my  Author  and  my  end.  1  live  in  the  world,  pos- 
sessed of  various  faculties  to  think,  and  feel,  and  remember,  I 
know  not  how.  I  want  to  know  tchat  I  am,  zchence  I  am,  and 
whither  I  am  bound. 

I  find  I  am  a  creature  capable  of  being  eitlier  happy  or  mis- 
erable, and  that  happiness  and  misery  are  within  my  po^vcr, 
and,  in  a  considerable  degree,  depend  upon  my  voluntary  ac- 
tions. There  are  many  objects  around  me,  some  of  which  are 
calculated  to  hurt  me,  and  others  to  minister  to  my  wants. 
There  are  millions  of  creatures  in  the  world,  beside  myself, 
some  possessing  similar  faculties  to  those  which  1  possess,  and 
others  of  another  kind.  They  rlso  are  capable  of  happiness 
or  misery,  and  it  depends  upon  my  choice,  whether  I  act  in  a 
way  calculated  to  injure  them,  or  to  promote  their  felicity.  Our 
nature,  our  feelings,  and  our  wants  are  common;  and  the  ques- 
tion presents  itself,  whether  I  should  consider  my  own  conve- 
nience alone,  and  gratify  myself  in  every  particular,  however 
others  may  be  injured;  or,  whether  1  ought  to  regaji'd  the  gen- 
eral welfare,  and  sacrifice  some  of  my  private  gratiHcations, 
to  promote  the  native  liberty  and  enjoyments  of  my  fellow  men? 
The  latter  appearing  to  be  self-evident,  I  feel  bound  to  use  my 
thinking  2)ow  ers,  that  I  may  learn,  not  only  the  means  of  hap- 
piness and  misery  to  myself,  that  I  may  pursue  the  one  and 
avoid  the  other;  but  also  what  is  calculated  to  guard  others 
from  misery,  and  to  promote  the  tranquillity  of  universal  so- 
ciety. _ 
B 


vi.  INTRODUCTION. 

Happiness  is  the  end  of  general  knowledge;  and  any  part  of 
knowledge  that  has  no  tendency  to  this  end,  (if  any  such  there 
be)  is  altogether  useless  and  insignificant.  I  find  that  I  desire 
liapjKness  by  an  nneontrolable  necessity  in  my  nature:  I  need 
no  increase  of  knowledge  to  stimulate  me  to  pursue  this  end; 
but  the  means  of  it  are  as  diversified  as  the  works  of  God.  and 
my  ignorance  of  them  is  such  that  there  is  need  of  perpetual 
meditation  to  discover  them;  and  I  presume  there  would  still  be 
great  room  for  improvements,  were  my  life  protracted  for  ten 
thousand  years. 

As  the  means  of  happiness,  when  known,  must  be  applied  or 
reduced  to  practice,  I  conclude  that  in  all  my  reflections  I 
should  have  a  reference  to  the  regulation  of  my  conduct;  and 
'that  which  shews  nie  immediately  how  to  act  right,  is  the  most 
important  of  all  knoM'ledge.  He  who  pursues  knowledge  with- 
out any  regard  to  practice,  is  like  a  man  sitting  by  the  way 
side,  enquiring  of  every  one,  that  he  may  learn  the  road  to  any 
certain  place,  in  order  to  sit  still  and  never  follow  the  direc- 
tions he  receives  with  so  much  apparent  solicitude. 

In  vain  may  he  pretend  that  disinterested  benevolence  influ- 
ences him  to  acquire  knowledge,  that  he  may  direct  others  into 
that  path  of  right  conduct,  in  which  he  refuses  to  walk  him- 
self; for  his  own  snpine  indifference  refutes  this  pretension  and 
evinces  to  every  attentive  spectator,  that  his  benevolence  is  so 
very  superficial  that  it  only  recommends  that  which  he  esteems 
not  worth  pursuing.  It  is  some  selfish  principle,  and  not  a  ge- 
nuine love  of  truth,  which  influences  the  empty  speculations  of 
8ueh  an  individual;  and  it  is  well  if  he  does  not  spend  more 
time  in  learning  how  to  excuse  and  justify  his  own  indifference 
to  virtue,  than  he  docs  in  teaching  others  how  to  pursue  and 
enjoy  the  benefits  thereof.  Believing,  as  his  conduct  proves  he 
does,  that  he  can  be  more  happy  in  the  neglect  of  right  conduct 
than  ill  the  practice  of  it,  he  will  directly  or  indirectly  recom- 
mend the  same  immorality  to  others,  and  will  excuse  or  defend 
the  delusion,  by  all  the  insinuating  sophistry  in  his  power. 

I  am  not  only  ignorant,  1  find,  of  many  things  which  it  con- 
cerns uie  to  know;  but  1  am  perpetually  liable  to  fall  into  error, 
which  is  worse  tlian  ignorance.  If  I  use  my  intellectual  fa- 
culties as  1  ought.  1  may  through  Divine  assistance,  I  conclude. 


INTRODUCTION.  vii. 

acquire  all  that  knouledgo  which  my  Maker  has  made  neces- 
sary for  my  present  state  of  being,  as  well  as  to  prepare  me  for 
eternal  happiness  hereafter;  but  there  are  many  things  which 
I  cannot  know,  because  the  Almighty  Jias  not  given  rae  the 
means  and  the  power  to  know  them.  If  I  believe  nothing  con- 
eerning  them,  bnt  live  contented  in  a  state  of  ignorance,  in 
matters  which  God  has  put  beyond  the  reach  of  my  understand- 
ing, I  shall  continue  safe  and  happy;  but  if  1  form  hypothesis, 
and  resolve  to  believe  without  evidence,  I  shall  fall  into  delu- 
sions that  may  have  a  pernicious  influence  upon  my  virtue  and 
tranquillity. 

Hence  it  appears  necessary  for  me  to  be  at  due  pains  to  dis- 
tinguish between  those  things  which  may  be  known  by  mankind, 
and  those  which  surpass  the  limits  of  human  understanding, 
lest  1  should  spend  my  time  in  fruitless  endeavors  to  compre- 
hend that  which  is  incomprehensible.  In  so  doing  I  should 
weary  myself  in  vain:  I  should  darken  counsel  hj  words  ivith- 
out  knowledge,  bewilder  the  understanding  of  others,  as  w  ell  as 
my  own,  and  involve  truth  in  the  shades  of  impenetrable  ob- 
scurity. I  should  waste  and  abuse  the  time  and  talents  which 
the  Parent  of  goodness  has  lent  me  for  a  season,  and  should 
remain  ignorant  of  truths  which  might  be  known,  by  prepos- 
terously neglecting  them  to  pursue  those  subjects  which  God 
has  reserved  for  the  contemplation  of  superior  intelligences. 

To  distinguish  between  things  knowable  by  me,  and  those 
which  are  not  so,  I  purpose  to  regulate  my  studies  chiefly  by 
this  single  rule:  When  a  subject  of  apparent  difficulty  presents 
itself,  if  the  impossibility  of  conceiving  it  more  clearly  do  not 
appear  self-evident,  I  must  give  it  a  full  trial;  I  must  avail 
myself  of  the  most  happy  season,  when  my  thinking  faculties 
are  in  the  best  order,  and  labor  to  understand  it  with  all  neces- 
sary attention  and  perseverance:  if  in  this  attempt  my  concep- 
tions become  more  clear  and  distinct,  I  receive  it  as  evidence 
that  I  am  not  out  of  my  proper  sphere;  but  if  every  attempt  be 
fruitless — if  my  pains  and  labors  serve  no  otlier  purpose  than 
to  weary  my  spirit,  and  involve  the  subject  in  greater  obscu- 
rity, I  take  for  granted  that  tliis  is  a  subject  beyond  the  grasp 
of  my  understanding,  and  must  immodiatoiy  give  up  the  pur- 
suit. 


viii.  INTRODUCTION. 

Among  the  vast  variety  of  subjects  witljiii  the  compass  of 
human  thought,  I  ought  to  select  those  for  my  most  serious  and 
attentive  iir.esiigalion,  that  appear  to  have  the  most  essential 
relation  to  the  solid  and  perpetual  happiness  of  mankind. 
Those  of  secondary  importance  should  have  but  a  secondary 
dv.'gree  of  attention,  especially  as  our  stay  in  this  world  is  so 
short,  tliat  we  must  necessarily  remain  ignorant  of  many  par- 
tierlars  for  want  of  time  to  examine  them. 

By  the  study  and  communication  of  trutli,  I  hope  to  glorify 
juy  Creator,  and  to  promote  the  welfare  of  my  fellow  creatures, 
as  well  as  my  own,  by  exhibiting  those  amiable  and  august  per- 
fections of  the  Deity,  which  are  the  foundation  of  all  felicity 
in  every  part  of  the  universe.  I  hope,  through  the  mediation 
of  my  Saviour,  to,  answer,  in  some  degree,  the  end  of  a  rational 
being,  and  to  stand  approved  before  Him  whose  vast  intelli- 
gence scrutinizes  the  secret  thoughts  cf  every  creature.  I  hope 
to  contribute  my  mite  to  the  support  of  truth  and  righteousness 
among  the  descendants  of  Adam,  and  to  assist,  as  I  may  be 
able,  the  benefactors  of  mankind,  in  defeating  the  dark  designs 
of  malevolence,  which  have  appeared  in  all  ages,  and  which 
have  sometimes  threatened  to  banish  ail  truth  and  virtue  from 
the  world,  and  to  fill  it  with  the  intolerable  darkness  of  super- 
stition, or  of  open  atheism. 

But  how  shall  I  guard  against  splitting  upon  the  rocks  or 
running  upon  the  shoals  which  stand  threatening  on  either 
hand?  How  many  good  men  have  fallen  into  great  mistakes.'' 
In  attempting  to  steer  our  vessel  upon  the  calm  and  unruffled 
current  of  reason  and  revelation,  that  we  may  reach  our  de- 
sired haven,  much  caution  is  needful  to  guard  against  the  dan- 
gerous whirlpools  of  passion  and  of  prejudice.  Many,  alas! 
have  missed  their  course  in  a  dark  and  a  cjoudy  day,  and  hav- 
ing run  a  ground  were  unable  to  get  forward  and  have  long 
stood  exposed  to  the  waves  of  prejudice  and  passion;  while 
others  to  avoid  a  similar  fate,  have  unhappily  kept  at  too  great 
a  distance,  and  tliereby  have  fallen  on  the  rocks  upon  the  other 
shore.  "  Nothing  is  inore  common,"  says  Mr.  Fletcher  "  thau 
for  men  to  run  into  one  extreme  under  the  plausible  pretence  of 
fjtvoidjng  another." 

Bhall  I  presume  then,  that  I  ^vill  be  able  to  avoid  all  dan- 


V  INTRODUCTION.  ix. 

ger,  and  to  keep  constantly  on  the  even  channel?  I  dare  not 
presume  so.  Yet  I  cannot  believe  that  all  men  are  destined  to 
run  into  dangerous  errors  of  necessity,  without  charging  my 
Maker  foolishly.  And  "to  run  away"  from  the  search  of 
truth,  on  account  of  danger,  "is  but  a  coward's  trick:"  the  ex- 
amples which  history  affords,  of  the  multiplied  and  dangerous 
errors  of  mankind,  ought  indeed  to  make  us  wary;  but  they 
ought  never  to  cause  us  to  fold  up  our  hands  and  do  nothing, 
under  the  whimsical  imagination,  that  we  shall  mend  the  mat- 
ter by  laying  an  embargo  upon  our  rational  faculties. 

God  gave  us  talents  that  we  might  improve,  not  bury  themj 
and  I  must  be  permitted  to  presume  that  a  right  use  of  them 
will  lead  to  the  end  intended:  and  unless  that  end  was  to  de- 
ceive mankind  with  various  delusions,  1  conclude  we  may  avoid 
all  dangerous  mistakes,  provided  we  move  cautiously,  after 
having  taken  due  pains  to  set  out  right.  Jf  we  take  a  wrong 
direction  when  we  first  set  out  upon  a  journey,  the  farther  we 
advance,  the  more  we  wander  out  of  the  way.  To  avoid  this, 
let  us  begin  by  examining  what  method  God  has  established  to 
lead  his  creatures  to  the  knowledge  of  his  truth.  Let  us  labor 
to  conceive  and  ascertain  the  proper  method  of  distinguishing 
truth  from  falsehood,  that  we  may  trace  out  the  causes  which 
have  led  thousands  so  far  into  the  wilderness. 


AN  ESSAY 


FLAN  OF  SAJLYATIOET- 


CHAPTER  I. 

WON  THE  METHOD  ESTABLISHED  BY  THE  CREATOR,  THROUGH 
WHICH  MANKIND  ARE  TO  DISTINGUISH  TRUTH  FROM  FALSE- 
HOOD. 


SECTION  I. 

^  general  view  of  truth  and  evidence. 

CxoD  has  given  us  power,  by  means  of  various  faculties  of  our 
nature,  to  conceive  many  things,  to  distinguish  between  them^ 
to  compare  them  together,  and  to  notice  their  connexion  or 
repugnance  to  each  other.  The  exercise  of  these  faculties 
produces  in. us  an  immediate  belief  or  conviction  that  some 
things  are  true  and  others  false.  Of  all  this  we  are  conscious, 
as  of  our  own  existence;  and  if  we  discredit  the  evidence  of 
consciousness,  we  may  at  once  abandon  all  farther  inquiry  and 
resign  ourselves  to  "the  great  profundity  obscure"  of  uni- 
versal scepticism.  I  know  my  own  existence;  I  find  by  con- 
sciousness alone;  and  if  I  cannot  have  a  sure  knowledge  of  this 
it  is  certain  that  I  can  know  nothing  else.  If  I  exist  not,  I 
have  no  faculties,  and  of  course  no  capacity  of  knowing; 
otherwise  knowledge  is  acquired  and  truth  discovered,  by  the 
intellectual  faculties  of  nothing. 

By  the  word  truth,  in  its  general  application,  I  understand 
th«8e  propositions,  or  decisions  of  the  judgment,  which  accord 


12  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

with  the  real  existence,  properties  and  relations  of  all  things.' 
those  which  do  not  thus  accord  with  real  existence,  properties 
and  relations,  are  false. 

The  ground  on  which  all  truth  rests,  or  the  criterion  by 
which  it  is  to  be  ascertained,  is  called  by  the  general  name  of 
evidence.  This  may  appear  in  all  possible  degrees,  from  the 
slightest  probability  to  the  most  absolute  certainty:  and  that 
judgment  which  is  according  to  truth,  is  regulated  by  the-  de- 
gree of  evidence  appearing  in  the  subject  on  which  it  decides. 
If  I  judge  that  to  be  certain  which  is  only  probable,  my  judg- 
ment is  erroneous;  it  is  equally  so,  if  I  judge  that  to  be  only 
probable  or  doubtful,  which  is  accompanied  with  evidence  that 
is  certain  and  indubitable. 

A  falsehood  is  to  be  known  or  ascertained  by  its  repugnance 
or  opposition  to  all  evidence.  As  truth  is  known  by  its  connex- 
ion with  evidence;  and  as  truth  and  falsehood  are  opposites,  it 
follows  that  falsehood  and  evidence  stand  in  contradiction  to 
each  other. 

A  doubtful  proposition  or  hypothesis,  is  known  by  its  entire 
want  of  evidence.  If  evidence  appear  for  it,  it  is  found  to  be 
a  truth;  if  against  it,  it  is  found  to  be  a  falsehood;  and  in  either 
case  it  no  longer  remains  a  doubtful  proposition,  or  hypothesis. 
I  will  suppose  a  proposition  is  advanced  that  there  are  elephants 
and  crocodiles  in  the  moon.  Is  this  to  be  received  as  a  truth  or  as 
a  falsehood.^  It  cannot  be  ascertained  as  a  truth,  because  there 
IS  no  evidence  for  it;  nor  as  a  falsehood,  because  there  is  none 
against  it:  therefore  to  receive  it  for  a  certain  truth  Avere  to 
espouse  an  hypothesis,  and  till  some  proof  be  produced  either 
for  or  against  it,  I  feel  disposed  to  conclude  that  it  is  beneath  a 
rational  being  to  believe  any  thing  concerning  the  matter.  This 
conclusion  must  stand,  or  else  the  following  one  must  fall,  namely 
that  it  is  the  part  of  a  rational  being  to  regulate  his  belief  by  evi- 
dence, and  by  nothing  else.  If  we  deny  this,  we  say  it  is  right 
and  proper  for  men  to  believe  without  evidence,  and  if  so,  how 
rediculous  and  vain  are  all  our  demands  for  testimony,  argu- 
ments and  demonstrations,  before  we  Avill  consent  to  receive 
every  thing  we  hear  as  a  proper  object  of  our  belief? 

But  as  all  truth  is  to  be  known  in  this  way,  it  appears  very 
desirable   to  understand  what  this  certain  something  is,  which 


PLAN  OF  SALTATION.  13 

we  call  evidence.  If  truth  is  known  by  this,  and  by  nothing  else; 
and  if  we  have  no  power  to  discover  evidence  or  to  conceive 
any  thing  concerning  its  nature,  it  is  plainly  impossible  for  us  to 
know  any  thing  concerning  what  is  true  and  what  is  false. 

But  am  I  able  to  give  wliat  is  called  a  logical  dehnition  of 
evidence?  I  think  1  am  not.  And  shall  1  thence  conclude  that  I 
have  no  conception  of  it,  and  that  it  is  a  word  which  has  no 
meaning?  If  I  conclude  so,  I  find  many  similar  conclusions  will 
follow.  No  such  definition  can  be  given  of  existence,  of  time,  of 
space,  of  power,  of  agency,  thought,  or  intelligence.  And  must  I 
therefore  conclude  that  men  have  no  conception  of  these  things, 
and  know  nothing  about  the  distinction  between  existence  and 
non-existence  ?  If  so,  I  must  contradict  my  consciousness,  give 
up  my  own  existence,  and  lay  by  my  pen  and  paper  for  the  moles 
and  the  bats. 

Not  being  willing  so  speedily  to  abandon  my  pursuit,  I  repeat 
the  enquiry,  v.hat  is  evidence  ?  sliall  I  answer  that  it  is  testimo- 
ny, argument  and  demonstration  ?  This  is  only  giving  the  names 
of  ditt'erent  kinds  of  evidence,  witliout  explaining  what  the  thing 
is  in  itself,  demonstration  is  one  thing;  testimony  is  another; 
but  that  certain  thing  we  call  evidence  is  common  to  them  both. 
I  know  there  is  a  city  in  England  called  London,  and  another 
in  France  called  Paris;  but  I  never  saw  either  of  them,  and  their 
existence  was  never  demonstrated:  yet  I  am  as  certain  of  their 
existence,  from  human  testimony,  as  I  am  of  any  other  truth  by 
demonstration.  And  my  belief  in  the  existence  of  those  cities  is 
founded  on  evidence,  as  well  as  in  those  truths  which  are  con- 
tained in  Euclid's  Elements. 

What  is  it  in  human  testimony  whicli  we  call  evidence  ?  Will 
it  be  said  we  believe  the  testimony  of  men  so  far  as  their  vera- 
city has  been  ascertained  by  experience  ?  I  still  pursue  the  sub- 
ject, and  ask,  what  is  it  in  our  experience  which  we  call  evidence? 
Why  must  I  believe  a  thing  to  be  true,  because  it  accords  with 
my  experience  ?  And  why  must  I  believe  a  thing  to  be  <rue  be- 
cause it  is  demonstrated  ?  How  do  I  know  but  demonstration  is 
the  very  thing  that  supports  falsehood  ?  I  suspect  no  rational 
answer  can  be  given  to  these  questions,  but  that  tliere  is  some- 
thing in  testimony,  experience,  and  clear  demonstration,  that  ip 
jiaturally  calculated  to  pVoduce  belief  or  conviction  in  an  intel- 
C 


14  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ligent  being  that  the  tiling  thus  proved  is  true:  and  this  certain 
something  which  natiirally  tends  to  produce  belief  or  conviction 
is  what  we  mean  by  evidence.  We  find  that  experience,  human 
testimony,  consciousness,  the  external  senses,  and  the  decisions 
or  operations  of  memory,  have  all  the  same  tendency  to  produce 
conviction.  It  is  the  united  judgment  of  mankind,  that  however 
these  sources  of  knowledge  may  differ  in  many  particulars,  there 
is  something  common  to  them  all:  and  that  something  is  denomi- 
nated evidence.  A  man  believes  that  he  thinks; that  there  is  so- 
lid ground  beneath  his  feet;  that  a  great  general  once  lived  called 
GEORGE  Washington:  but  none  of  these  thiligs  have  ever  been 
demonstrated;  and  yet  his  belief  is  founded  on  evidence  from 
three  sources:  from  consciousness,  sensation,  and  human  testi- 
mony. 

Although  the  nature  of  evidence  cannot  be  fully  comprehended 
or  logically  defined,  yet  it  frequently  shines  as  the  beams  of 
light,  to  which  it  is  often  compared  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I 
may  be  unable  to  define  light,  or  to  comprehend  its  essence;  yet 
I  have  no  difficulty  in  perceiving  objects  while  it  shines  around 
them.  As  light  is  something  which  enables  me  to  discover  the 
existence  of  things  about  me,  so  evidence  is  something  which  il- 
luminates my  understanding,  whereby  I  discover  many  truths, 
and  am  able  to  distinguish  them  from  falsehood.  If  I  shut  my 
eyes  and  refuse  to  admit  the  light  till  I  can  completely  compre- 
hend its  nature,  I  may  grope  in  darkness  at  the  blaze  of  noon: 
in  like  manner,  if  I  refuse  to  admit  the  light  of  evidence  till  I 
completely  comprehend  how  it  enables  me  to  discover  truth,  I 
may  walk  in  unbelieving  darkness  to  the  end  of  life. 

1  know  it  is  true  that  I  am  now  thinking.  But  how  do  I  know 
this  ?  I  know  it  by  consciousness.  But  w  hat  is  this  conscious- 
ness }  All  I  know  of  the  matter  is  that  it  is  some  kind  of  illumi- 
nation  in  my  mind,  or  whatever  else  you  may  please  to  name  it, 
that  produces  an  immediate  and  invincible  conviction,  that  I 
now  think.  If  the  evidence  of  our  thinking  be  doubtful,  that  of 
demonstration  is  equally  so,  because  demonstration  depends 
wpon  thinking,  w  ithout  which  it  could  aftbrd  no  evidence  at  all. 

Can  any  man  give  a  reason  why  we  should  yield  to  mathema- 
tical demonstration,  any  more  than  other  kinds  of  evidence  ? 
Will  He  oft'er  this  for  a  reason,  thj|t  it  is  stronger  than  any  other 


I>LAN  OF  SALVATION.  m 

kind  ?  I  know  not  what  he  means  by  its  being  stronger,  unless 
it  be  that  it  is  naturally  calculated  to  produce  a  stronger  or  more 
firm  belief  in  a  rational  nature,  than  any  other  kind;  and  if  this 
be  his  meaning  I  must  dissent  from  him,  or  give  up  my  consci- 
ousness: for  the  evidence  I  have  of  my  existence,  and  the  exis- 
tence of  this  paper  before  me,  is  as  strong  and  naturally  tends 
to  produce  as  firm  a  conviction  as  any  demonstration  ever  did 
or  can  do. 

Will  he  say  it  is  a  more  reasonable  kind  of  evidence  than  any 
other  ?  This  is  easily  said,  but  what  proof  will  he  condescend 
to  give  us  of  its  truth  ?  Has  it  ever  been  demonstrated  that  no 
other  kind  is  so  reasonable  as  this  ?  If  not,  he  obtains  the 
knowledge  of  this  truth  (if  it  be  a  truth)  from  some  other  source 
of  evidence  less  reasonable  than  that  of  demonstration.  And  if 
so,  is  it  not  as  unreasonable  to  receive  this  truth  from  that  in- 
ferior source  of  knowledge,  as  any  other  ?  Is  he  conscious  that 
demonstration  is  the  most  reasonable  kind  of  evidence  .^'  If  so, 
consciousness  has  furnished  him  with  a  discovery  that  his  boast- 
ed demonstration  could  never  furnish,  and  he  has  no  reason  to 
give  a  preference  to  the  latter,  but  what  he  professedly  derives 
from  the  former. 

Will  he  say  it  is  more  intelligible,  more  clear,  than  the  tes- 
timony of  sense,  of  consciousness,  or  any  thing  else?  How 
does  he  know  it?  Has  it  ever  been  demonstrated?  If  not,  he  is 
indebted  to  one  of  the  less  reasonable  sources  of  knowledge, 
for  one  of  his  most  unshaken  principles  of  faith;  namely,  that 
our  belief  ought  to  be  regulated  by  demonstrative  reasoning,  iu 
preference  to  every  thing  else.  And  just  as  much  reason  as  he 
has  to  give  this  the  preference,  so  much  he  has  to  admire  that 
source  of  knowledge  without  which  he  would  never  have  made 
the  discovery.  This  conclusion  will  remain  undeniable  till  it 
be  demonstrated  that  demonstration  is  the  most  reasonable  kind 
of  evidence. 

It  will  perhaps  be-  said  that  mathematical  truths  are  more 
^lear  and  certain  than  any  other  kind,  because  they  are  neceS' 
sary,  and  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  be  false.  How  do  we 
know  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  be  false?  In  vain  may  it  be  an-» 
swered  that  they  have  been  demonstrated;  for  the  first  princi- 
ples of  necessary   trath  are  takftn  for  granted,  as  well  as  all 


16  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

other  first  principles.  Has  it  ever  been  demonstrated  that  "  a 
part  is  less  than  the  whole,"  and  that  "  equal  quantities  added 
to  equal  quantities  will  make  equal  sums?"  No:  every  mathe- 
matician knows  that  these  principles  are  taken  for  granted 
without  proof,  and  if  they  be  denied,  all  demonstration  is  at  an 
end.  I  repeat  the  question,  how  do  we  know  that  these  princi- 
ples are  true,  and  that  their  contrary  is  impossible.^  The  only 
answer  is,  that  God  has  given  us  faculties  whereby  we  perceive 
their  truth  with  immediate  conviction,  as  I  now  immediately 
perceive  this  paper  lying  before  me.  In  like  manner,  by  the 
faculties  God  has  giVen  me,  I  perceive  this  truth,  with  immedi- 
ate conviction,  that  I  now  exist,  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  me 
to  exist  and  not  exist  at  the  same  time.  The  first  principles  of 
mathematical  truth  are  seen  no  less  immediately,  and  in  a  man- 
ner no  less  unaccountable:  and  1  will  wait  patiently  to  hear  what 
reason  can  be  given  why  we  should  discredit  those  faculties  God 
has  given  us,  in  their  immediate  decision  of  what'  is  true,  any 
more  than  in  their  decision  of  what  must  necessarily  be  so. 


SECTION  II. 

Concerning  the  several  sources  of  our  knowledge^  and  first,  of 
those  principles  which  are  self-evident. 

Perhaps  all  the  sources  of  human  knowledge  may  be  reduced 
to  this  general  division,  first,  intuitive  certainty,  comprehend- 
ing all  truths  that  are  self-evident:  secondly,  the  evidence  of 
reasoning:  and  thirdly,  the  evidence  of  Revelation.  I  do  not 
conclude  absolutely  that  all  evidence  is  comprehended  in  this 
division,  or  enumeration  of  the  general  sources  of  it;  but  I  pre- 
sume there  will  be  few  exceptions  found,  if  any,  and  till  they 
appear,  I  must  confine  my  remarks  to  the  different  members  of 
this  division. 

And  first,  we  will  consider  the  principles  of  intuitive  certain- 
ty, that  are  self-evident.     By  their  being  self-evident,  I  metm 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  17 

that  their  evidence  is  contained  in  themselves,  and  (he  mind 
perceives  it  immediately,  independent  of  all  external  proof  or 
argument. 

Such  principles  are  the  foundation  of  all  rational  conclusions 
or  deductions  in  every  science,  and  we  cannot  begin  to  reason, 
till  we  first  perceive  some  truth  immediately,  on  which  to  take 
our  stand;  for  all  reasoning  consists  in  inferring  one  truth  from 
another,  and  we  must  be  in  possession  of  the  first  truth,  before 
we  can  reason  or  draw  an  inference  from  it,  otherwise  the  infer- 
ence is  not  drawn  from  truth  at  all;  and  if  the  premises  be  not 
true,  how  can  the  conclusion  be  so.'' 

Some  first  principles  have  been  mentioned  already,  and  ex- 
amples might  be  given  in  every  science  or  branch  of  human 
knowledge.  This  has  been  done  by  Dr.  Reid  and  others;  and 
all  that  is  necessary  for  our  present  purpose  is  to  present  a  feAv 
examples  before  the  reader,  and  appeal  to  the  immediate  dic- 
tates of  his  judgment,  as  well  as  to  the  common  judgment  of 
mankind. 

Concerning  truth  in  general,  there  are  some  self-evident 
principles,  that  are  perceived  by  intuitive  conviction,  and  bor- 
row not  their  evidence  from  any  external  proof.  The  first 
principle  of  this  kind  is,  that  there  is  a  distinction  between 
truth  and  falsehood.  This  is  self  evident,  and  if  it  be  contra- 
dicted, nothing  in  the  world  can  be  proved  by  any  argument: 
for  after  the  clearest  demonstration  is  laid  before  a  man;  how 
easy  is  it  for  him  to  reply,  "  your  argument  proves  nothing  to 
be  true,  any  more  than  the  most  trifling  sophism;  and  it  is  im- 
possible it  should,  seeing  there  is  no  distinction  between  truth 
and  falsehood."  Truth  and  falsehood  are  the  same  thing: 
therefore  demonstration  and  sophistry  are  both  alike,  for  they 
both  support  something;  and  whatever  it  be,  it  is  all  falsehood 
and  all  truth,  because  there  is  no  manner  of  difference  between 
them. 

Now  if  I  were  disposed  to  turn  sceptic,  and  to  shelter  myself 
in  this  strong  hold,  how  in  the  name  of  reason  and  common 
sense  should  1  be  beaten  out.^  Would  you  undertake  to  convince 
me  by  argument  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  truth  and 
falsehood?  What  is  the  arsrumeut  by  which  it  is  to  be  proved r 


18  AN  ESSAY  ON  THfi 

Will  it  be  said  that  reason,  or  the  human  faculties,  perceive 
aorae  things  to  be  true  and  others  false;  that  those  faculties  arc 
correct  in  their  decisions;  and  therefore  there  is  a  ilistinction 
between  truth  and  falsehood?  And  what  is  this  but  merely  af- 
firming the  thing  to  be  proved,  namely,  that  God  has  given  us 
power  to  perceive,  w  ith  immediate  conviction,  that  some  things 
are  true  and  others  false?  This  is  taken  for  granted  because  it 
is  self  evident;  and  if  we  conclude  God  has  given  us  deceitful 
faculties,  and  refuse  to  believe  the  contrary  till  it  be  proved  by 
argument,  we  may  remain  forever  in  our  unbelief;  for  no  argii* 
ment  can  be  given  but  what  depends  upon  the  exercise  of  those 
very  faculties  which  have  before  been  supposed  to  be  deceitful. 
For  us  first  to  suppose  that  our  faculties  are  deceitful,  and  then 
to  prove  by  arguments,  produced  by  the  exercise  of  those  very 
faculties,  that  they  are  not  so,  is  like  our  suspecting  a  certain 
man  to  be  a  thief  and  a  liar,  and  then  proving  by  his  own  testi- 
mony that  he  is  an  honest  man.  The  veracity  of  our  original 
faculties  is  taken  for  granted  in  every  argument  we  use,  and  in 
every  belief  we  form,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  life;  while 
we  refuse  to  credit  them,  we  must  discredit  every  thing  in  the 
world;  and  if  we  resolve  to  believe  that  God  has  stamped  a  lie 
upon  the  human  intellects  and  senses  till  our  reason  is  able  to 
muster  up  some  argument  for  their  veracity,  besides  that  imme- 
diate conviction  of  it  that  exists  in  every  rational  being,  we  may 
at  once  give  up  all  our  knowledge,  lie  down  in  the  profound 
and  universal  ignorance  of  scepticism,  and  believe  nothing  that 
ever  was  presented  to  the  human  understanding,  excepting  this 
one  proposition,  that  our  faculties  are  deceitful. 

Another  self-evident  principle  is,  that  truth  and  falsehood 
are  opposite  to  each  other,  or  in  other  words,  that  it  is  impoS' 
siblefor  tico  contradictory  propositions  both  to  be  true. 

Every  man  possessing  the  human,  faculties,  excepting  hira 
who  is  in  a  state  of  insanity,  immediately  perceives  the  truth  of 
those  principles,  and  a  thousand  metaphysical  arguments  Avould 
not  make  them  more  clear,  or  more  evident,  than  they  are  w  ith» 
out  them. 

Indeed,  all  such  principles  are  incapable  of  being  proved  by 
any  direct  argument;  except,  perhaps,  where  two  such  truths 
are  so  related  that  one  may  be  inferred  from  the  other;  because 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION".  le 

every  true  argument  is  built  upon  something  more  evident  than 
the  thing  to  be  proved,  otherwise  it  brings  no  additional  evi- 
dence to  the  subject  it  was  brought  to  support;  and  it  is  irra- 
tional to  give  any  more  credit  to  the  principle,  after  the  pre- 
tended support  of  such  an  argument,  than  we  did  before  it  was 
brought  forward.  And  if  two  truths  equally  evident,  are  in- 
ferred the  one  from  the  other,  this  may  serve  for  illustration; 
but  no  additional  evidence  is  brought  to  either  of  them.  But 
what  principle  can  we  find,  on  which  to  found  an  argument  that 
is  more  evident  than  this,  that  truth  and  falsehood  are  opposite 
to  each  other,  or  that  he  who  contradicts  truth  speaks  that  which 
is  false?  If  we  can  find  no  other  principle  more  evident  than 
this,  w  ith  which  it  stands  connected,  and  from  which  it  may  be 
logically  inferred,  how  is  it  possible  for  its  evidence  to  be  increased 
by  any  argument.'' 

Another  self-evident  proposition,  connected  with  the  former, 
is,  that  it  is  possible  for  truth  and  falsehood  to  be  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  the  human  mind.  If  this  be  not  believed  upon 
its  own  evidence,  it  will  never  be  believed  at  all:  for  it  is  impos- 
sible to  prove  it  by  any  argument  but  such  as  will  take  for  grant- 
ed the  very  principle  itself  as  its  foundation.  For  whatever 
the  argument  be,  its  premises  must  be  true,  before  a  true  con- 
elusion  can  be  drawn;  and  therefore  the  man  takes  for  granted 
that  he  distinguishes  truth  from  falsehood  in  the  premises,  be- 
fore he  comes  to  his  conclusion:  and  to  say  the  conclusion  proves 
the  premises  to  be  true,  w  hen  itself  has  no  evidence  but  what 
it  derives  from  the  premises,  is  to  reason  in  a  circle,  and  to  take 
for  granted  the  very  thing  in  question. 

We  need  not  here  introduce  the  various  principles  belonging 
to  the  different  sciences:  but  a  few  thoughts  upon  the  subject  of 
morals,  or  of  right  and  wrong,  may  not  be  improper,  because  the 
value  of  truth  consists  chiefly  in  leading  us  to  pursue  that  which 
is  right,  and  to  avoid  that  which  is  wrong.  This  is  the  more 
necessary,  as  the  subject  of  right  and  wrong  has  been  sometimes 
represented  as  being  so  loose  and  unsettled,  that  every  man  may 
draw  the  line  for  himself,  and  make  right  and  wrong  to  suit  his 
own  taste,  and  may  change  them  as  he  pleases.  It  has  been  said 
to  depend  entirely  on  education,and  that  which  is  right  with  one 
many  or  with  one  nation,  is  wrong  with  another;  and  different 


20  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

nations  of  men  may  if  they  please,  form  systems  of  morals  direct- 
ly opposite  to  each  other,  and  the  sltimate  conclusion  is,  that 
they  are  all  right,  and  there  is  no  such  thing  as  wrong  in  the 
M'orld,  only  so  far  as  men  are  pleased  to  frame  such  an  imagi- 
nation to  themselves.  This  I  suspect,  has  long  been  a  pleasing 
theme  of  atheism;  and  I  think  it  will  stand  firm  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  if  it  be  indeed  true,  that  there  are  no  self-evident 
principles  of  morality;  but  if  there  be  such  principles;  moral 
duty  has  as  firm  a  foundation  as  mathematics. 

I  am  far  from  supposing  that  alLmoral  duties  are  self-evident; 
thousands  of  cases  niay  occur,  in  which  we  will  be  at  a  loss  to 
decide  Avhat  is  right,  and  we  are  liable  to  err  in  moral  subjects 
as  well  as  in  all  others:  I  am  only  disposed  to  contend  that  there 
are  a  few  general  principles  that  are  self-evident,  and  which 
stand  from  age  to  age  as  the  basis  of  all  moral  reasoning. 

That  our  first  conceptions  of  right  and  wrong  do  not  depend 
solely  on  education,  is  evident  from  the  following  reflections: 

1st.  Our  fathers  could  not  teach  us  a  system  of  morality,  with- 
ontfirst  having  conceptions  of  moral  subjects  themselves;  other- 
wise you  say  they  could  commnnicate  that  to  us,  of  which  they, 
themselves  were  entirely  ignorant.  How  did  they  come  by  their 
knowledge  of  right  and  wrong?  why  to  be  sure  from  their  fathers 
and  instructors.  And  so  we  may  trace  it  back  to  Adam,  and 
the  question  still  recurs,  how  did  the  first  man  receive  the  con- 
ception that  one  kind  of  conduct  is  right  and  another  wrong.^ 
He  must  have  received  it  from  God,  either  by  immediate  revela- 
tion, or  by  the  genuine  dictates  of  his  original  faculties.  Both 
are  the  voice  of  God  in  man,  and  I  confess  I  cannot  see  why  we 
might  not  as  well  believe  that  he  gives  a  deceitful  revelation, 
as  to  believe  the  genuine  and  immediate  dictates  of  our  original 
faculties  naturally  tend  to  deceive  and  lead  us  into  delusion. 

2d.  Adam's  children  must  have  had  some  conception  of  the 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  before  they  could  under- 
stand any  of  his  instructions  on  the  subject:  otherwise  you  say 
one  man  can  give  another  an  original  conception  that  is  not  the 
immediate  dictate  of  any  faculty  of  his  nature.  And  ifa  crea- 
ture can  be  instructed  in  those  subjects,  who  has  no  original  pow- 
er to  oonceive  of  moral  obligation,  why  do  wc  not  educate  our 
horses  and  dogs  to  become  subjects  of  moral  govemiBent,  and 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  01 

proper  members  of  civil  society?  They  cannot  understanrl  Our  in- 
structions upon  right  ami  wrong,  for  this  reason  only,  that  they 
have  no  original  conception  of  justice  or  of  right,  and  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  us  to  give  it  to  them.  Of  course  the  reason  why  we  can 
instruct  our  children  in  morality,  and  not  our  domestic  animals,  is 
that  they  have  some  faculty  from  whence  the  hrst  conception 
arises,  which  brute  animals  have  not:  this  conception  they  receiv- 
ed, aot  from  us,  but  from  brod  their  maker,  in  a  manner  best  known 
to  -himself. 

3d.  Let  it  be  granted,  that  a  man's  moral  opinons  depend  very 
much  upon  his  education,  and  that  his  faculties  have  been  much 
assisted  by  it  in  arriving  to  that  maturity  which  they  have  acquir- 
ed: what  then,^  Will  it  follow  that  his  conception  of  the  firs* 
principles  of  morals  was  as  much  received  by  education  as  any 
•ther  opinion.^  If  we  conclude  there  is  no  real  distinction  between 
right  and  wrong,  merely  because  our  moral  judgments  may  be 
warped  by  education,  we  might  with  equal  reason  conclude  there 
is  no  distinction  between  true  uml  false;  for  surely  our  reasoning 
faculties  are  dependent  on  education  as  well  as  our  conscience, 
a,nd  our  belief  of  true  and  false  is  as  much  received  from  our  fa- 
tilers,  as  our  views  of  right  and  ivrong.  And  if  the  latter  affords 
just  ground  to  conclude  that  men  may  draw  the  line  of  justice 
^vhere  they  please,  the  former  affords  the  same  ground  to  con- 
•lude  that  they  may  draw  the  line  of  truth  w  here  they  please:  and 
thus  while  with  one  hand  we  give  up  all  righteousness  in  favour  of 
atheism,  we  give  up  all  truth,  with  the  other,  in  favour  of  that 
•'sceptical  philosophy"  which  teaches  that  all  things  are  equally 
doubtful,  and  of  course,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  knowledge 
in  the  world. 

4th.  If  the  human  soul  has  no  original  conceptions  of  right  and 
ivrong,  it  would  be  as  easy  and  natural  for  men  to  believe  one  doc-- 
trine  of  morality  as  another,  and  we  might  reasonably  expect  to 
see  whole  nations  of  them  seriously  believing  and  instructing  their 
«hildren,  that  barbarity  to  a  man's  dearest  friends  is  the  most 
lovely  virtue  he  could  possibly  practise,  while  every  species  of 
kindness  is  immoral  and  wicked  to  the  last  degree.  Did  any 
savage  in  the  wilderness  ever  believe  this,  and  teach  it  to  his 
children  ?  And  why  not,  if  it  be  as  natural  for  us  to  receive  one  no- 
tion of  right  and  wrong  as  another? 

But  while  we  renounce  this  flimsy  plea  of  the  libertine,  shall  we 
vun  into  another  extreme,  under  pretence  of  supporting  revelation, 
and  maintain  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  source  from  whence  man- 
D 


22  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

kind  have  derived  all  their  kuowledge  of  right  and  wrong?  Some 
christians  appear  to  think  that  we  discredit  revelation,  whenever 
we  admit  of  any  other  source  of  knowledge,  especially  the  know- 
ledge of  duty.  Who  can  tell  us  what  is  our  duty,  say  they,  or 
what  is  the  will  of  God  concerning  us  but  God  himself?  This 
he  has  done  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  they  are  the  only  sure 
guide  for  us  to  follow  in  matters  of  morality. 

I  answer,  if  the  Bible  be  our  only  guide,  I  would  be  glad  to 
know  where  it  teaches  the  doctrine  now  under  consideration: 
where  is  there  a  passage  from  Genesis  to  the  Revelation,  that  says 
the  Bible  is  the  only  source^  whence  man  derives  his  first  concep- 
tions concerning  right  and  wrong  ?  If  this  be  a  truth,  and  if  they 
have  learned  it  either  from  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  I  confess 
it  is  a  perfectly  new  discovery  to  me;  for  I  have  never  been  able 
to  find  any  such  declaration  in  all  the  scriptures.  And  if  they 
have  learned  it  from  any  other  source,  and  not  from  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  or  apostles,  then  tliey  have  violated  their  own  rule, 
and  have  gone  to  another  standard  to  learn  something  concerning 
morality. 

It  is  true  the  Bible  says.  If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the 
oracles  of  God,  and  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  ivord  it  is  he- 
cause  there  is  no  light  in  them:  1  Pet.  iv.  11.  Isa.  viii.  20.  And  I 
very  readily  admit  that  if  Ave  hold  any  opinion  that  is  not  accord- 
ing to,  or  which  contradicts  this  rule,  it  is  an  error,  and  is  neither 
received  by  intuitive  conviction,  nor  by  the  right  exercise  of  rea- 
son: because  God  will  never  give  one  kind  of  evidence  to  contradict 
another.  But  those  passages  only  affirm  that  the  Bible  is  a  true 
rule,  and  therefore  that  which  is  not  according  to  it,  is  false,  be- 
cause it  is  impossible  for  truth  to  contradict  itself. 

Do  tlie  inspired  writers  set  out,  by  teaching  us  first  of  all,  that 
there  is  a  difterence  between  right  and  wrong.^  It  is  surely  neces- 
sary for  us  to  know  this  in  the  first  place,  and  then  we  are  ready 
to  hear  what  is  right,  and  what  is  wrong:  but  there  is  no 
such  passage   in  all  the  Bible:  it  is  every  where  taken  for  grant- 


his  nature. 

If  MO  had  no  other  conviction  of  right  and  wrong  but  what  we 
derive  from  the  inspired  writings,  the  precepts  thereof  would, 
to  us,  be  perfectly  arbitrary,  and  we  should  have  nothing  in  our- 
selves to  correspond  to  their  fitness  and  rightou«.iiess;  whereas  one 
of  those  writers  himself  declared  that  thev  addressed  themselves 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  23 

to  every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God.  2.  Cor.  iv.  2.  The 
Bible  itself  is  an  address  to  our  reason  and  conscience;  and  if  we 
did  not  perceive  its  connexion  with  the  genuine  dictates  of  our 
rational  and  moral  faculties,  wc  should  have  no  evidence  of  its  di- 
vinity. 

Supposing  a  bible  had  been  given,  containino;'  ten  such  com- 
mandments as  these: 

1st.  Thou  shalt  hate  the  Lord  thy  God  with  perfect  detesta- 
tion and  abhorrence. 

2d.  Thou  shalt  blasplieme  his  name  perpetually,  and  en- 
courage others  so  to  do. 

3d.  Thou  shalt  murder  every  upright  man  thou  canst  find  in 
the  world. 

4th.  Thou  shalt  loathe  and  abhor  thy  parents,  and  take  every 
opportunity  to  torment  them  to  distraction. 

5th.  Thou  shalt  steal  all  thy  neighbour's  goods,  and  do  thy 
uttermost  to  starve  him  to  death. 

6th.  Thou  shalt  frequently  put  coals  of  fire  in  thy  childrens' 
bosom,  and  keep  them  in  lingering  torment,  as  long  as  there  is  any 
life  in  them. 

7th.  Thou  shalt  debase  thy  reason  by  drunkenness  and  do 
every  thing  in  thy  power  to  ruin  every  faculty  of  thy  nature. 

8th.  Thou  shalt  avoid  all  truth  as  deadly  poison,  and  establish 
thy  soul  in  lying  and  hypocrisy  as  perfectly  and  thoroughly  as  pos- 
sible. 

9th.  Thou  shalt  encourage  and  regard  all  murderers  and  assist 
them  to  destroy  all  mankind,  but  themselves,  from  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

10th.  Thou  shalt  pull  out  the  eyes  of  thy  horses  and  cattle  and 
C5Ut  pieces  of  flesh  from  their  bones,  till  they  are  gradually  tor- 
mented to  death.  And  lastly,  thou  shalt  cut  thine  own  throat, 
with  all  the  rage  of  an  infuriated  devil,  and  thus  put  a  finishing 
stroke  to  animal  existence,  and  to  all  happiness  under  the  sun. 

Now  let  me  ask  any  man  that  has  a  conscience,  to  lay  his  hand 
upon  his  heart,  and  say  .if  a  bible  containing  such  commandments 
would  not  be  contradicted  by  the  invincible  dictates  cf  his  na- 
ture, and  cause  his  soul  to  shrink  back  with  liorror!  Hut  if  we 
have  no  conception  of  what  is  right  and  wrong,  but  what  we  derive 
from  the  inspired  writings,  it  would  be  as  perfectly  natural  and 
easy  to  believe  these  precepts  to  be  right  as  any  others,  and  uo- 
thing  more  would  be  necessary  to  convince  us  that  we  ought  to 
practise  them  as  our  sacred  duty,  but  to  find  them  ia  the  bible. 


3*  An  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Whereas  if  a  bible  had  been  given,  as  a  book  of  inspiration, 
containing  such  precepts,  however  artfully  it  might  have  bee* 
brought  forward,  and  under  whatever  specious  appearances,  I  pre- 
sume its  morality  alone  would  couviuce  every  rational  man  that 
it  originated  from  the  devil. 

But  if  we  had  no  conception  of  the  nature  of  morality  from  any 
other  source,  if  no  conviction  of  the  kind  arose  from  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  nature,  one  kind  of  morality  exhibited  in  revelatioa* 
would  be   as  readily  received,  and  as  much  adapted  to  produce 
conviction  as  another. 

If  no  conviction,  on  these  subjects,  arises  from  the  native  dic- 
tates of  our  conscience,  or  moral  judgment,  the  purity  of  chris- 
tiaii  morals  would  afford  no  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Gospel:  for 
with  what  sense  could  1  appeal  to  the  purity  of  the  scripture  pre- 
cepts, as  evidence  to  convince  a  man  that  they  came  from  God,  if 
there  was  nothing  iji  his  soul  to  dictate  that  one  kind  of  morality 
is  more  pure,  or  more  \vorthy  of  God  than  another.^ 

The  two  principal  sources  of  argument  in  favour  of  revelation, 
are,  iirst,  that  it  recommends  itself  and  its  credentials,-to  the  plain 
dictates  of  our  rational  faculties;  and  secondly,  that  it  appeals  to 
ev?ry  m(t,n''s  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God.  But  if  reason  and  con- 
science are  to  be  laid  aside,  or  entirely  distrusted,  as  some  would 
seem  to  insinuate,  under  pretence  of  exalting  revelation;  we  should 
thereby  sap  the  very  foundation  of  every  argument  by  which  Chris- 
tianity is  supported,  shake  hands  with  the  sceptic,  and  acknow- 
ledge that  the  Gospel  can  be  proved  by  no  rational  evidence.  But 
while  some  of  us  are  vainly  supposing  we  do  honour  to  revelation* 
by  undervaluing  our  intellectual  faculties,  and  almost  insinuat- 
ing that  the  Gospel  cannot  prosper  while  reason  or  conscience  is 
tolerated;  there  are  others,  with  no  such  fondness  for  revelation, 
hut  e<[ually  willing  to  lampoon  conscience  out  of  the  world,  who 
maintain,  under  pretence  of  exalting  reason,  that  all  true  concep- 
tions of  morality  are  discovered  and  proved  by  argument. 

I  am  almost  templed  to  suspect  that  such  persons  do  not  fairly 
understand  what  an  argument  is:  for  how  can  an  argument  be  formed 
till  some  truth  is  first  known  as  the  ground  or  premises, from  which 
the  conclusion  is  inferred  ?  1  presume  every  logician  in  the  world 
will  tell  us  that  sound  reasoning  consists  in  drawing  consequen- 
ces f)r  conclusions  from  premises  that  are  true.  They  will  tell  ug 
that  if  ilio  premises  be  false,  the  conclusion  must  be  equally  so:  and 
how,  ]  ask,  did  we  discover  that  the  premises  were  true  ?  Were 
they  regularly  and  logically  drawn  from  other  premises  ?  Theji 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  25 

Ifow  did  we  discover  that  those  others  were  true  ?  Thus  we  may 
trace  the  matter  back  till  we  come  to  the  first  link  of  the  chain, 
the  truth  of  which  must  have  been  discovered  by  some  other  means 
before  it  was  possible  for  any  argument  to  be  formed. 

All  our  moral  reasonings  therefore,  must  rest  upon  some  first 
principles  of  morality,  discovered  by  the  human  mind,  independent 
of  such  reasoning.  Let  us  specify  a  few  principles  ofthiskind^ 
and  examine  whether  they  have  been  discovered  by  argument. 

1st.  There  is  one  kind  of  conduct  that  is  right  and  another  kind 
that  is  wrong. 

2d.  Right  and  wrong  are  opposite  to  each  other,  and  it  is  impos* 
sible  that  they  should  be  the  same. 

3d.  All  mankind  ought  to  do  that  which  is  right,  and  to  avoid 
doing  that  which  is  wrong. 

4th.  That  conduct  which  tends  to  promote  general  happiness  is 
right,  and  that  which  tends  to  promote  general   misery  is   wrong. 

These  principles  are  no  where  expressly  laid  down  in  the  scrip- 
tures, but  are  every  where  taken  for  granted:  and  I  presume  they 
have  never  been  proved  by  argument  since  the  world  was  made; 
yet  there  is  no  point  in  revelation,  or  that  has  been  proved  by  rea- 
soning, more  evident  than  these,  because  they  are  the  clear  and 
immediate  dictates  of  our  moral  faculty,  and  are  discovered  as  in- 
dependently of  all  reasoning,  as  the  first  principles  of  mathema- 
tics. 

The  principles  just  stated  are  so  far  from  being  discovered  by 
argument,  that  they  themselves  are  the  foundation  of  all  reason^ 
ings  in  moral  subjects,  and  it  is  impossible  for  any  point  in  morality 
to  be  proved  without  them.  Let  us  give  an  example,  that  the  mat- 
ter may  be  plainly  laid  before  the  reader. 

I  propose  to  prove,  by  argument,  that  hypocritical  lying  is 
wrong: 

First,  I  take  my  stand  on  mathematical  principles; 
A  part  is  less  than  the  whole; 

All  the  parts  taken  together  are  equal  to  the  whole; 
Therefore  hypocritical  lying  is  wrong. 

If  the  reader  receives  no  conviction  by  this  argument,  we  will 
try  another  from  astronomy: 

All  the  planets  move  round  the  sun: 
But  this  earth  is  one  of  the  planets; 
Therefore  lying  is  wrong: 

Take  a  third  from  metaphysics: 

All  things  which  we  perceive  are  ideas; 
But  vve  perceive  our  friends  ami  relations: 


36  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Therefore  lying  is  wrong. 
Another  from  intellectual  philosophy: 

Whatever  is  perceived  by  the  immediate  dictates  of  our  original 
faculties  is  true;  but  they  immediately  dictate  that  there  is  solid 
ground  beneath  our  feet;  therefore  lying  is  wrong. 

All  this  may  appear  like  trifling;  but  I  presume  it  is  far  worss 
trifling  to  impose  upon  the  souls  of  men,  by  persuading  them  that 
they  or  their  fathers  had  no  moral  conception  till  it  was  first  disco- 
vered by  argument.  Let  me  suppose  myself  in  this  condition  in 
which  1  am  able  to  reason,  but  at  the  same  time  have  no  conception 
of  any  thing  belonging  to  morality:  I  must  certainly  begin  to  reason, 
then,  from  something  which  1  know;  and  having  tried  four  kinds  of 
premises,  1  find  their  regular  conclusions  would  leave  me  as  pro- 
foundly ignorant  of  all  moral  subjects  as  1  was  before.  Where  then 
shall  I  take  my  stand  ?  I  may  run  through  every  other  branch  of 
human  knowledge  to  form  my  premises,  with  no  better  success, 
till  the  premises  themselves  are  formed  of  moral  principles:  the 
reason  is,  that  no  sound  argument  can  contain  any  thing  in  the 
conclusion  but  what  is  contained  in  the  premises  and  is  derived 
from  them:  therefore  if  the  conclusion  be  of  a  moral  nature,  the 
premises  must  be  equally  so. 

Let  us  now  try  what  success  we  can  have,  when  we  begin  to 
build  upon  the  right  foundation. 

That  conduct  which  injures  viankind,  and tendsto  promote  gen^ 
eral  misenjis  wrong;  hut  hypocritical  lying  has  this  tendencT/;  there- 
fore hypocritical  lying  is  wrong.  Now  the  conclusion  stands  clear 
and  can  never  be  overturned,  unless  it  can  be  made  to  appear  that 
one  or  both  of  the  premises  are  not  true.  If  this  can  be  made  ap- 
pear, the  conclusion  must  fall;  for  it  has  no  evidence  but  what  de- 
pends upon  their  truth,  and  upon  its  connexion  with  them. 

If  a  free-thinker  should  take  it  in  his  head  to  deny  the  minor 
preposition,  and  declare  that  lying  and  hypocrisy  do  not  tend  to  the 
general  mi«ery  of  mankind:  he  thereby  proves  himself  a  fool  for 
uttering  so  many  complaints  against  the  dreadful  evil  that  has 
been  done  in  the  world  by  hypocrisy  and  priest-craft:  and  if  he 
deny  the  major,  and  insist  that  it  is  not  wrong  to  do  that  which 
tends  to  general  misery,  he  equally  excuses  all  priests  and  hypo- 
crites, and  proves  himself  to  have  less  regard  to  morality  than  a 
barbarian. 

If  he  is  forced  to  acknowledge  that  it  is  wrong  to  do  that  which 
tends  to  (he  general  misery  of  mankind,  1  must  repeat  the  enquiry, 
how  did  he  come  by  the  knowledge  of  this  truth?  Has  it  ever  been 
proved  to  him  by  argument  .^    If  so,  what  were  the  premises, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  27 

from  which  this  conclusion  was  drawn  ?  They  must  have  been  as 
evidently  true,  as  the  principle  which  he  says  has  been  proved  by 
them,  otherwise  it  has  as  much  evidence  without  their  assistance 
as  with  it.  And  if  he  has  deduced  this  conclusion  from  some  other 
principle  of  morals,  more  evident  than  this,  how  did  he  come  by 
the  knowledge  of  that.^  was  it  inferred  from  principles  still 
more  evident?  from  what  then  were  they  inferred,^  Thus  we  may 
run  him  back  acl  infinitum,  and  he  is  absolutely  forced  to  confess 
that  all  rational  argument  begins  upon  principles  that  are  self- 
evident,  or  upon  such  as  have  no  evidence  at  all.  If  the  former, 
the  point  for  which  I  contend  is  gained;  if  the  latter,  all  the  prin- 
ciples of  true  reasoning  are  contradicted,  which  are  founded  on 
this  axiom  in  logic,  that  the  conclusion  can  never  be  viore  evident  or 
more  true,  than  the  premises  from  which  it  is  drawn. 


SECTION  in. 

Two  objections  answered. 

It  may  be  objected,  first,  that  the  general  principles  of  right  and 
wrong  here  laid  down  are  not  self-evident  to  the  human  mind,  oth- 
erwise all  men  would  agree  in  them:  whereas  many  have  disbe- 
lieved them,  and  Avhole  nations  have  contradicted  them  in  prac- 
tice.   I  answer: 

1st.  It  is  true,  that  all  sinners  contradict  them  in  practice; 
but  if  we  conclude  no  rule  of  right  can  be  self-evident  to  a  man 
while  he  has  power  to  violate  it  in  practice,  we  make  the  rule  of 
right  consist  in  doing  what  a  man  is  forced  to  do  of  necessity.  And 
if  we  suppose  a  man's  doing  wrong,  is  a  proof  that  he  knows  no 
better,  we  suppose  that  all  sinners  perpetrate  their  crimes  from  a 
suspicion  that  they  are  right,  and  if  they  were  fully  convinced  of 
the  wrong  they  would  not  do  it:  whereas  their  acting  in  opposition 
to  that  conviction  is  the  very  ground  of  their  criminality,  and 
without  it  they  would  be  no  more  accountable  than  a  beast. 

2d.  A  man's  professing  to  disbelieve  first  principles  is  no  proof 
against  them.  Many  have  professed  to  disbelieve  them,  and  tried 
hard  to  do  it,  in  order  to  quiet  their  consciences  and  rest  satisfied  in 
their  inexcusable  vices:  and  wishing  to  conquer  their  natural  con- 
victions of  justice,  they  are  fond  of  professing  their  unbelief,  and 
gladly   eftcr  what  arguments  they  can  in  defence  of  it,  that  fhry 


28  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

may  influence  others  to  do  so,  and  thus  they  hope  to  gain  nnmhei^ 
on  their  side,  and  strengthen  themselves  by  the  soothing  influence 
of  authority. 

Some  sceptics  have  professed  to  discredit  their  senses,  and  to  be- 
lieve the  present  existence  of  the  world  is  not  self-evident:  yet  they 
will  as  cautiously  avoid  the  fire  and  the  water  as  other  people. 

In  like  manner  some  libertines  may  profess  to  have  no  evidence 
to  convince  them  of  the  first  principles  of  morals:  yet  when  they 
themselves  are  injured,  they  immediately  resent  it:  and  manifest  as 
full  a  conviction  of  right  and  wrong  as  their  neighbours.  They^ 
may  purposely  stifle  the  dictates  of  conscience,  respecting  their 
own  duty,  and  then  pretend  they  have  no  evidence  of  what  is  right; 
and  so  a  servant  may  stop  his  ears  when  his  master  is  giving  di- 
rections, and  afterwards  excuse  himself  by  saying,  "Sir,  I  did  not 
hear  you:"'  but  Be  not  deceived,  for  God  is  not  mocked;  whatsoever 
a  man  sowetli,  that  shall  he  also  reap. 

3d.  If  men  labour  for  a  long  while  to  do  violence  to  their  nature, 
and  at  last  ruin  their  faculties,  till  they  are  lost  tcf  the  plainest  dic- 
tates of  common  sense,  is  this  deception  produced  by  the  genuine 
dictates  of  their  faculties  ^  or  by  the  great  pains  they  have  taken 
to  subdue  them  ?  shall  1  put  out  my  eyes,  and  suppose  1  have  there- 
by produced  a  very  clear  argument,  that  the  eyes  God  has  given 
to  mankind  are  not  naturally  calculated  to  enable  us  to  see  ?  or 
that  seeing  is  not  accompanied  with  a  self-evident  conviction  that 
the  objects  before  our  eyes  do  actually  exist  ?  If  1  am  now  blind, 
■who  is  to  blame  ?  Is  God  to  blame  for  not  giving  me  better  eyes, 
or  I  myself  for  having  pulled  them  out  ?  And  if  a  man  debases  his 
rational  faculties  till  he  is  no  longer  able  to  distinguish  between 
sense  and  nonsense,  who  will  offer  this  as  a  serious  argument  that 
the  reasoning  powers  of  maiikind  are  naturally  deceitful  ?  We 
might  as  well  say  that  the  case  of  a  man,  who  through  long  and  ha- 
bitual melancholy  has  been  led  to  believe  that  his  head  is  made  of 
glass,  might  justly  be  produced  as  a  powerful  reason  to  convince 
us  that  the  dictates  of  common  sense  are  all  fallacious,  and  that  it 
is  impossible  for  us  to  distinguish,  with  any  certainty,  between  a 
piece  of  glass  and  a  man's  head. 

4th.  I  would  be  glud  to  know  w  hat  evidence  has  been  produced 
of  an  instance,  I  will  not  say  of  whole  nations,  but  of  a  single  in- 
dividual of  the  human  race,  Jew  or  Gentile,  savage  or  barbarian, 
that  ever  seriously  questioned,  or  doubted,  whether  right  conduct 
is  that  which  tends  to  the  general  happiness,  or  that  which  tends 
to  the  general  misery  of  mankind. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  S? 

*We  hare  often  been  referred  to  those  persecutors  whe  murdered 
the  upright  and  thought  they  were  doingGod  service,  as  instances 
in  point;  as  also  to  tliose  heathens  who  burnt  their  own  children  in 
the  fire,  from  a  conviction  of  its  being  their  sacred  duty. 

But  I  hope  it  may  be  made  appear  that  these  instances  afford 
no  manner  of  evidence  against  the  principle  which,  with  so  much 
confidence,  they  are  brought  to  disprove.  Why  did  those  persecu^ 
tors  murder  the  upright  ?  was  it  not  because  they  believed  them 
to  be  a  nuisance  in  the  creation,  and  that  they  would  render  an 
essential  service  to  mankind  by  putting  them  out  of  the  way  ?  If 
so,  they  were  so  far  from  disbelieving  the  principle,  that  it  is  right 
to  do  tliat  which  tends  to  general  haj)pinesst>  that  they  acted  upou 
it  in  those  very  actions  wliich  are  produced  to  prove  that  it  was 
not  acknowledged  by  them.  Their  error  consisted,  not  in  taking 
for  granted  that  a  man  ought  to  jjromote  gemral  happiness  rather 
than  misery,  which  is  self-evident  to  every  savage  in  the  wilder- 
ness, but,  in  supposing  that  the  general  welfare  would  be  promo- 
ted by  the  mm*der  of  those  men.  They  were  led  into  this  wicked- 
ness, not  by  the  genuine  dictate  of  their  conscience,  which  produ- 
ced a  conviction  of  the  former  principle,  but  by  the  influence  of 
their  prejudice  and  malice,  which  influenced  them  to  espouse  the 
*atter. 

And  why  did  those  heathens  sacrifice  their  own  children  ?  Was 
it  from  a  conviction  that  it  was  right,  to  do  every  thing  in  their 
power  to  banish  all  happiness  from  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  not  at 
all:  They  believed,  as  well  as  we,  that  it  is  right  to  promote  gene- 
ral happiness,  and  wrong  to  do  the  contrary;  but  from  the  phren- 
sy  of  their  superstition,  they  were  led  to  suppose  that  the  sacrifice 
of  their  children  was  necessary  to  secure  the  general  welfare,  by 
averting  the  judgments  of  their  angry  Gods.  In  this  their  error 
consisted,  and  this  was  no  dictate  of  their  moral  faculty;  but  they 
espoused  it  through  passion  and  faise  reasoning,  which  led 
them  to  multiply  their  deities  at  pleasure,  as  imagination 
should  suggest,  and  then  to  attribute  to  them  the  malevolent 
affections  of  devils  and  wicked  men. 

And  because  the  heathens  abused  their  reason,  by  yielding  themr 
selves  up  to  their  wicked  passions,  we  are  disposed  to  apologize 
for  them,  are  we?  and  are  not  for  attributing  any  of  tJieir  absurdi* 
ties  to  the  inexcusable  indulgence  of  abominable  passions;  but  the 
whole  must  be  resolved  into  the  deceitfulness  or  deficiency  of  the 
original  faculties  which  God  Almighty  had  given  themi  In  this 
manner,  I  fear,  some  christians   think  they  da  God  serviccj  and 


eo  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

support  the  honour  of  revelation,  by  supposing  the  heathens  have 
•no  certain  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong,  and  of  course  that  they 
are  pefectly  excusable,  in  the  midst  of  all  their  crimes! 

Revelation  declares  the  contrary,  in  the  most  unequivocal  terms: 
«  For  when  the  gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the 
things  contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law 
unto  themselves:  which  shew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts 
the  mean  while  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another."  Rom.  1. 14. 

And  were  they  perfectly  excusable  in  that  superstitious  idola- 
try which  led  them  te  burn  their  own  children?  Was  it  plainly 
impossible  for  them  to  know  any  better  .^  It  was  not:  "Because 
that  which  may  be  known  of  God,  is  manifest  in  them:  for  God 
hath  shewed  it  unto  them.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from 
the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  eveii  his  eternal  power  and  God-head;  so 
that  they  are  without  excuse:  because  that,  when  they  knew  God, 
they  glorified  him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful;  but  became 
vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish  hearts  were  darkened. 
Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became  fooLs,  and  changed 
the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God,  into  an  image  made  like  to  cor- 
ruptible man,  and  to  birds,  and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping 
things."  Rom.  1.  19.  &c. 

Thus  the  Apostle  declares  positively,  that  their  barbarous  idol- 
atry did  not  arise  from  any  deficiency  in  either  their  reason  or 
conscience;  but  from  their  pride — ^professing  themselves  to  be 
wise:  and  from  reasonings  built  upon  their  vain  imaginations,  or 
hypotheses. 

The  second  objection  is,  "  that  if  we  admit  that  there  are  first 
principles,  which  are  to  be  taken  for  granted  without  proof,  men 
may  receive  what  they  please  for  a  first  principle,  and  shelter 
themselves  very  securely  ^k-om  all  argument,  by  pretending  that 
their  opinions  are  too  evident  to  admit  of  reasoning.  By  what 
criterion  are  your  self-evident  principles  to  be  ascertained.^  and 
how  will  you  make  it  appear,  that  we  are  in  no  danger  of  being 
deceived  in  these  matters?"     I  answer: 

1st.  If  we  are  to  conclude  there  are  no  self-evident  principles, 
-because  it  is  possible  to  receive  that  for  self-evident  M'hich  is  not 
so;  the  very  same  argument  would  drive  all  kinds  of  evidence  out 
of  the  world.  Let  us  try  the  virtue  of  this  formidable  objection, 
and  trace  its  invariable  applieation: 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ,^ 

Men  may  be  mistaken,  and  take  that  for  a  first  principle  which 
is  not  so;  therefore  there  are  no  principles  that  are  self-evident. 

Men  may  be  mistaken,  and  take  that  for  a  sound  argument 
which  is  not  so;  therefore  there  is  no  sound  argument  in  the  world. 

Men  may  be  mistaken,  and  take  that  for  the  true  meaning  of 
scripture  which  is  not  so;  therefore  the  scripture  has  no  true 
meaning. 

Men  may  be  deceived,  and  take  that  for  true  christian  experi- 
ence, er  immediate  inspiration  from  God,  which  is  imaginary; 
therefore  no  christian  experience,  or  inspiration  from  God,  is  de- 
serving any  credit. 

Thus  we  have  a  plain  and  short  road  to  scepticism,  infidelity 
and  atheism. 

2d.  It  is  a  vain  thing  to  attempt  to  muster  up  any  other  criterion 
of  truth  and  certainty,  than  the  plain  dictates  of  those  faculties 
which  God  has  given  to  man;  for  none  other  can  be  had;  and  if  we 
refuse  to  credit  these,  I  presume  our  unbelief  is  more  perfectly  in- 
curable than  the  lunacy  of  any  man  in  Bedlam. 

Suppose  a  man,  being  afflicted  with  the  gout  or  pleurisy,  tells 
us  he  is  in  great  pain  or  misery:  is  this  true  or  false?  if  true,  how 
does  he  know  it?  not  by  scripture,  argument,  or  demonstration:  he 
knows  it,  because  it  is  self-evident  You  ask  him,  by  what  criterion 
he  knows  that  he  is  in  a  state  of  misery:  he  immediately  answers, 
<'I  know  it  is  so,  because  I  feel  it."  Now  if  we  should  wander 
through  the  wilderness  of  metapTiysics  to  eternity,  I  presume  we 
should  never  give  a  better  answer,  or  a  better  criterion. 

A  witty  philosopher  might  reply,  "You  say  you  know  it  is  so, 
because  you  feel  it;  but  how  do  you  know  that  your  feeling 'are 
notfallacious  ?  By  what  criterion  do  you  determine  whepihey  are 
according  to  truth,  and  when  they  are  not?  Can  yo«  make  it  ap- 
pear that  it  is  impossible  that  you  should  be  deceived?" 

I  suppose  the  man  of  common  sensdpo  reply:  Sir  if  you  will  not 
allow  me  to  believe  any  thing,  till  I  can  make  it  appear  that  it  is 
impossible  for  me  to  be  deceived,  I  must  not  believe  you  are  any 
thing  difterent  from  a  quadruped;  for  it  is  surely  as  possible  for  me 
to  be  deceived  in  taking  you  to  be  a  man,  as  it  is  in  believing  the 
reality  of  whatlfeel.  This,  if  I  have  right  conceptions  of  it,  would 
be  answering  a  fool  according  to  his  folly;  and  I  leave  the  reader 
to  decide  which  evinces  the  most  solid  reason  and  judgment,  the 
philosopher's  queries,  or  the  sick  man's  reply. 

3d.  The  man  that  rejects  all  first  principles,  because  he  may 
possibly  be  mistaken,  and  may  receive  something  for  self-evident. 


H2  AN  ESI§AY  ON  THE 

whichis  uotso, manifests  almost  as  much  wisdom  as  he, who  having 
received  a  number  of  eagles  or  guineas,  casts  them  all  into  the  sea, 
because  some  of  them  may  happen  to  be  counterfeit,  and  because  he 
may  possibly  be  mistaken  in  judging  some  of  them  to  be  pure  me- 
tal when  they  are  not  so.  Or  the  wisdom  of  such  a  person  may 
perhaps  be  considered  to  equal  his,  who  refrains  from  all  food  un- 
till  he  starves  himself  to  death,  for  fear  he  might  partake  of  some- 
thing poisonous,  or  might  possibly  be  mistaken  in  judging  that  to  be 
wholesome  food  which  was  not  wholesome.  And  indeed  if  it  be 
true,  as  some  philosophers  appear  to  imagine,  that  our  senses  are 
very  deceitful,  and  we  never  know  when  they  are  lobe  trusted,  we 
are  all  foolish,  for  supposing  that  we  can  distinguish,  with  any  cer- 
tainty, between  gold  and  iron,  bread  and  poison:  for  it  is  by  means 
of  our  senses  only,  that  the  understanding  is  able  to  judge  of  these 
matters. 

Permit  me  to  suppose  that  two  philosophers  have  each  received 
a  certain  sum  of  money."  one  of  them  belongs  to  the  old  academy, 
and  the  other  is  a  genuine  disciple  of  Dr.  Reid.  They  sit  down, 
and  reason  together,  upon  the  proper  disposal  of  their  treasure. 

They  both  agree,  first,  that  more  or  less  of  their  coin  may  be 
counterfeit.  They  agree,  secondly,  that  it  is  possible  for  them  to 
err,  and  to  take  a  counterfeit  piece  to  be  genuine. 

They  agree,  thirdly,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  great  importance  to 
distinguish  the  precious  from  the  vile. 

But  though  there  is  this  perfect  harmony  between  them,  con- 
cerning the  premises,  yet  they  differ  very  widely  in  their  conclu- 
aions. 

The  sceptic  concludes,  his  wisest  course  is  to  cast  his  money  in- 
into  the  sea,  without  farther  ceremony,  lest  he  should  be  deceived. 
The  other  concludes,  the  wisest  course  is  to  examine  each  piece  by 
itself,  in  a  clear  light;  and  after  comparing  them  together,  form  the 
best  judgment  he  can.  a  any  one  appear  evidently  to  be  base 
metal,  and  if  there  remain  no  room  for  reasonable  doubt  concern- 
ing it,  he  consents  that  it  may  be  cast  into  the  sea;  but  he  will  not 
cast  any  away,  upon  the  first  appearance  of  their  being  suspicious, 
but  will  reserve  them  for  farther  examination.  Those  which  he  finds 
to  be  evidently  good,  he  applies  to  their  proper  use,  and  resolves, 
tbat  w  here  he  can  see  no  good  reason  to  doubt,  he  w  ill  not  doubt. 

The  sceptical  gentleman  addresses  his  companion  in  these  terms: 
^  you,  sir,  have  admitted,  that  there  may  be  base  metal  in  your 
possession,  how  little  or  how  much  you  know  not:  you  have  granted 
also,  that  you  may  possibly  be  mistaken  io  your  judgment,  Mshan 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  33 

you  attempt  to  distinguish  the  precious  from  the  vile:  now  you 
ought  to  consider,  that  your  counterfeit  coin,  will  go  into  circulation, 
and  deceive  others  as  well  as  yourself:  therefore  I  counsel  you  to 
lay  aside  your  dogmatical  spirit  and  cast  your  treasure  at  once  in- 
to the  ocean,  lest  the  whole  should  prove  to  be  counterfeit."  His 
friend  replies,  "  If  sir,  I  cast  all  this  money  indiscriminately  in- 
io  the  sea,  on  account  of  the  abstract  possibility  of  my  retaining 
6ome  peices  that  are  counterfeit,  I  might  as  well  cast  all  my  food 
into  the  sea  likewise;  for  it  is  equally  possible  for  me  to  mistake 
its  quality:  and  if  all  mankind  should  adopt  your  short  method  of 
avoiding  poison,  and  should  abstain  from  all  kinds  oi  aliment  till 
they  starve  and  perish,  would  you  receive  it  as  a  demonstration  of 
their  wisdom  and  profound  philosophy  ?  This  would  indeed  re- 
duce them  to  the  state,  in  which  your  philosophy  supposes  them 
now  to  be;  for,  provided  they  had  no  existence  after  death,  all 
things  to  them  would  be  equally  uncertain  and  unknown:  but 
while  mankind  are  permitted  to  live,  and  to  enjoy  their  present 
faculties,  I  must  presume,  that  your  metaphysical  refinements  will 
never  be  able  to  shake  their  firm  conviction  in  the  plain  dictates 
of  common  sense." 

Leaving  the  reader  to  judge  of  the  logic  of  those  minute  philor 
sophers,  I  return  to  the  objection. 

4th.  I  am  far  from  supposing,  that  all  first  principles  so  impress 
themselves  upon  the  human  soul,  that  every  man  is  absolutely 
forced  to  perceive  their  evidence  whether  he  will  or  no.  We  may 
hold  it  self-evident  that  mankind  have  eyes,  by  which  they  are 
enabled  to  see,  without  supposing  that  every  man  is  oompelled 
to  see  by  some  fatal  necessity.  A  person  may  shut  his  eyes  if  he 
be  so  disposed,  or  may  put  them  out  and  remain  in  total  darkness. 

A  self-evident  pi'inciple  may  long  be  concealed  under  the  rub- 
bish of  sophistry,  and  men  have  not  the  opportunity  to  see  it  in  a 
clear  light:  remove  the  rubbish,  bring  it  out  of  the  enormous  tem- 
ple of  hypothetical  metaphysics,  set  it  before  a  man  of  common 
sense,  «n  its  own  native  simplicity,  and  he  will  immediately  per- 
ceive its  truth  with  self-evident  conviction.  It  needs  no  foreign 
argument  to  support  it;  let  it  only  be  brought  to  open  view,  where 
it  can  be  properly  and  distinctly  understood,  and  it  m  ill  shine  by 
its  own  native  lustre,  like  "  the  powerful  king  of  day,  rejoicing  in 
the  east." 

First  principles  are  like  the  sun,  and  the  fixed  stars  of  heaven; 
they  scorn  to  depend  upon  a  borrowed  light;  and  for  us  to  attempt 
to  support  them,  by  arguments  drawn  from  some  other  quarter,  is 


34  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

like  holding  a  candle  to  the  sun,  under  pretence,  that  his  own  rays 
are  not  enough  to  satisfy  our  profound  intelligence  of  his  existence. 
Some  of  the  brightest  luminaries  of  truth  have  been  long  concealed, 
and  almost  totally  eclipsed,  by  the  thick  fogs,  of  metaphysical 
dust,  that  have  been  raised  to  obscure  their  evidence:  nothing  more 
is  wanting,  to  restore  them  to  their  native  dignity,  than  a  removal 
of  the  hypotlieses  and  sophistry,  which  have  interposed  as  a  dark 
cloud,  and  obstructed  their  influence  upon  the  human  understand- 
ing. 

And  shall  we  conclude  that  they  are  not  self-evident,  because  it 
is  possible  for  them  to  be  obscured?  We  might  as  well  believx  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  light  in  the  world,  or  that  its  existence  is  not 
self-evident,  because  it  is  possible  for  men  to  retire  into  a  dark 
cave  where  its  beams  are  excluded,  and  where  all  is  silent  and 
gloomy  as  midnight,  in  the  "great  profundity  obscure." 

When  the  woman  lost  her  piece  of  silver,  she  immediately  be- 
took herself  to  sweeping  and  searching  the  house,  in  order  that 
she  might  find  it:  let  us  suppose  that  a  sceptical  philosopher  had 
purposely  concealed  it,  under  some  rubbish  in  one  corner  of  the 
house:  after  removing  the  rubbish  she  perceives  it,  takes  it  in  her 
hand  rejoicing,  calls  in  her  neighbours,  and  concludes,  certainly, 
that  she  has  found  her  money  that  was  lost.  But  the  philosopher 
comes  forward,  hoping  to  deprive  her  of  her  property,  by  mere 
dint  of  argument.  "  Madam,"  says  he,  "  how  do  you  know  that 
you  have  certainly  found  your  silver.^"  "Ihold  it  now  in  my  hand," 
says  she,  "and  see  it  before  my  eyes."  But  you  ought  to  consider  (he 
rejoins)  that  it  is  but  a  very  little  while  since  this  money  was  con- 
cealed from  you,  and  you  could  not  perceive  it:  therefore  your  pre- 
sent perception  of  it  is  not  self-evident,  because  nothing  isself-evi- 
dent,but  what  is  immediately  present  to  the  mind  from  the  cradle  to 
the  grave:  nothing  can  be  self-evident  but  an  innate  idea,  and  as 
there  is  no  such  thing,  nothing  can  be  certainly  known  to  be 
frue  in  this  way:  tlicrefore  you  ought  not  to  believe  that  you  have 
found  your  silver,  till  it  be  proved  by  argument.  Your  senses  are 
very  deceitful,  and  though  you  seem  to  see  this  money,  very  plain- 
ly, and  to  feel  it  in  your  hand,  yet  you  ouglit  not  to  receive  such  fal- 
lacious representations,  or  you  will  expose  yourself  to  perpetual 
delusion.  And  besides,  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  perceive  any 
thing  but  an  idea,  and  therefore  the  piece  of  silver  you  so  much 
rejoice  over,  is  nothing  but  an  idea,  ami  that, itself,  is  not  contained 
in  your  hand,  but  in  your  brains.  I  therefore  counsel  you  to  drop 
this  vulgar  notion,  and  go  again  in  pursuit  of  your  lost  treasure," 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  33 

Qrtery. — Would  the  neighbours  conclude,  that  this  gentleman  was 
seriously  employed,  in  striving  to  benefit  the  woman,  by  instructing 
her  in  the  knowledge  of  truth,  or  that  he  had  a  secret  design  to 
wheedle  her  out  of  her  money  ? 

5th.  Although  self-evident  truths,  need  only  be  seen,  to  be  be- 
lieved; yet  several  things  are  necessary  to  their  being  properly 
seen: 

First,  our  faculties  must  have  arrived  to  some  degree  of  matu- 
rity; because,  in  a  state  of  infancy,  we  are  incapable  of  exercising 
that  voluntary  attention,  which  is  necessary  to  the  conception  of 
some  of  the  plainest  and  most  evident  truths.  But  if  no  truth  is 
to  be  admitted  as  self-evident,  because  it  is  not  perceived  to  be  so 
by  an  infant,  then  no  argument  can  be  a  sound  one,  because  it  is 
not  perceived  to  be  so  by  an  infant. 

It  is  an  easy  thing  to  suppose  (1st.)  that  a  self-evident  truth 
and  an  innate  idea  are  the  same  thing,  and  (2d.)  that  man  has  no 
innate  ideas:  the  conclusion  then  very  evid,ently  follows,  tliat  man 
perceives  nothing  that  is  self-evident. 

I  confess  it  is  beyond  my  power  to  comprehend  whether  men 
have  innate  ideas  or  not;  for  I  cannot  understand  what  an  idea  is, 
if  it  be  any  thing  different  from  a  thought:  and  I  hope  nobody  Mill 
say,  it  cannot  be  self-evident  to  a  man  that  he  thinks,  because  he 
is  unable  to  prove  that  any  of  his  thoughts  are  innate.  I  know 
thati  now  think,  andthati  do  not  receive  this  truth  by  reasoning,  but 
by  self-evident  conviction:  if  you  could  prove,  by  ten  thousand  argu- 
ments, that  I  have  innate  ideas,  this  truth,  that  I  now  think,  would 
be  no  more  evident  to  me  than  it  now  is;  and  if  you  prove  by  as 
many  more,  that  I  have  them  not,  you  will  make  it  no  less  evi- 
dent. 

I  know  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  be  in  Europe  and  America  at 
same  time.  How  do  you  prove  that  says  a  philosophier.^  I  answer 
I  cannot  prove  it  at  all,  because  it  is  self-evident.  But  if  it  be  self- 
evident,  says  he,  then  it  must  be  an  innate  idea;  but  an  infant  has 
no  such  idea,  therefore  it  cannot  be  innate:  consequently  you  do 
not  know  any  such  thin^,  and  ought  not  to  believe  it,  till  it  be 
proved  to  you  by  some  argument. 

Thus  am  I  brought  to  a  point  at  once,  and  what  shall  I  now  do  ? 
I  must  appeal  to  the  good  sense  of  mankind  to  decide  which  would 
be  the  more  reasonable  course  for  me  to  take.  To  go  in  search  of 
some  argument  to  prove  that  I  cannot  Jive  in  FiUrope  and  America 
at  the  same  time?  Or  to  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that  the  philoso- 
pher's dbctriue  coacermng  ideas  is  a  jmers  fiction,  invented  to  ac- 


Sd'  AIS  ESSAY  ON  THE 

count  for  our  perception  of  external  objects,  and  which  contradict* 
the  plainest  dictates  of  the  human  faculties,  and  ends  in  universal 
gcepticisni?  The  latter  has  been  done  eftectually,  by  Dr.  Reid, 
Dr.  Beatty,Dr.  Campbell,  and  others:  and  1  suspect  that  those  who 
Still  adhere  to  the  old  jargon,  concerning  ideas  in  the  brain,  have 
either  never  heard  of  those  authors,  or  dare  not  read  them,  for  fear 
of  being  convinced;  or  else  they  are  very  indifferent  about  the 
matter,  and  are  willing  to  be  content  with  any  system,  provided  it 
have  a  sufficient  number  of  votaries  on  its  side. 

Secondly,  our  faculties  must  be  in  a  sound  state,  in  order  to 
judge  of  self-evident  principles. 
A  crazy  man  may  hold  it  very  doubtful  whether  there  be  any  truth 
in  the  testimony  o^  his  senses:  and,  as  a  proof  that  he  does  really 
distrust  tliem,  may  wplk  carelessly  into  the  fire;  but  when  we  ex- 
amine the  genuine  dictates  of  the  human  faculties,  I  hope  yve  will 
not  go  to  Bedlam  to  draw  our  conclusions.  If  a  physician  should 
chance  to  find  a  man  with  a  disorder  in  his  eyes,  which  made  him 
pur-blind,  and  should  thence  infer,  that  the  human  eye  cannot  disr 
tinguish  objects,  at  the  distance  of  fifty  yards,  would  he  not  be  just- 
ly suspected  of  insincerity,  or  of  being  more  disordered  in  his  un- 
derstanding than  the  poor  man  was  in  his  eyes? 

Thirdly,  The  plainest  truths  may  be  unnoticed  and  undiscover- 
ed, merely  for  want  of  that  attention  and  habitual  thinking  which 
is  necessary  to  a  clear  conception  of  them.  We  have  no  immedi- 
ate conviction  of  their  truth  at  present,  not  for  want  of  argument, 
but  for  want  of  such  explanations  as  shall  set  them  in  a  clear  light 
before  us,  separated  from  that  confusion  in  which  our  own  obscure 
thoughts,  or  the  sophistry  of  others,  had  involved  them.  Sophis- 
try is  often  more  disconcerted  by  such  clear  statements  and  fa- 
miliar illustrations,  as  serve  to  take  of  every  veil,  and  to  set  the 
truth  in  a  fair  light  before  the  mind,  than  she  is  by  direct  argu- 
ment: because,  if  self-evident  truths  be  kept  out  of  view,  or  the  at- 
tention be  diverted  from  them;  and  if  her  darling  hypothesis  can 
be  kept  from  too  close  a  scrutiny,  she  can  put  on  the  appearance 
of  the  most  clear  and  conclusive  reasoning.  One  conclusion  is 
built  on  another,  in  the  most  exact  order,  until  they  grow  into  a 
system.  The  world  is  invited  to  behold  the  beautiful  fabric:  op- 
ponents are  challenged  to  show  any  defect  in  the  reasoning:  and 
all  is  safe,  so  long  as  it  can  carefully  be  kept  out  of  view,  that  a 
secret  hypothesis  is  the  chief  corner  stone  of  the  building,  and  sup- 
ports the  sbining  castle  in  the  air.  An  hypothesis  too,  which  is 
not  only  destitute  of  any  evidence,  but  which,  if  properly  examin- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION^.  ^ 

ed,  will  be  found  to  be  an  absurdity,  shocking  to  the  coramoa 
sense  of  mankind,  and  perhaps  subversive  of  all  human  know- 
ledge. 

The  longer  this  is  kept  out  of  sight,  the  greater  numbers  will  be 
led  into  the  delusion,  till  at  last  the  mighty  fabric  becomes  s& 
venerable  by  age,  and  has  received  such  support  from  authority, 
and  at  the  same  time  has  so  many  respectable  names  and  authors 
to  plead  in  its  favour,  who  have  been  unhappily  drawn  into  the 
snare,  for  want  of  due  care  and  attention  to  distinguish  between 
first  principles  and  hypotheses,  that  it  becomes  a  kind  of  heresy^ 
presumption,  or  dogmatism,  for  a  man  even  to  suspect  the  founda- 
tion of  this  vast  building,  which  has  been  reared  by  such  able  and  in- 
genious hands.  If  you  affirm  that  there  are  some  first  principles 
which  are  self-evident,  and  ought  to  be  believed  very  confidently, 
you  are  branded  with  being  dogmatical;  but  if  you  indulge  the  least 
doubt  or  suspicion  concerning  the  hypothesis,  which  has  been  taken 
for  granted  without  proof,  and  which  has  only  numbers  and  author- 
ity to  plead  in  its  favour,  you  are  entirely  too  sceptical.  These  are 
very  ingenious  stratagems,  but  I  am  a  little  inclined  to  think,  that 
truth  can  do  very  well  without  them.  Fourthly,  another  thing  es- 
sentially necessary  to  the  clear  conception  of  first  principles,  is, 
that  sincere  love  of  truth,  that  candid  honesty  of  mind,  which  will 
give  every  subject  a  fair  and  dispassionate  hearing.  "Pi'ejudice  is 
blind,"  says  Mr.  Fletcher,  and  I  persume  it  will  never  be  any  thing 
better  than  a  blind  guide  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Its  influence  on 
our  minds  is  so  pernicious,  that  instead  of  leading  us  to  pursue 
truth  by  the  pure  light  of  evidence,  it  leads  us  to  resist  conviction, 
when  the  evidence  almost  overpowers  us.  By  doing  so  for  a  long 
time,  it  becomes  formed  into  a  habit,  the  judgment  becomes  warp- 
ed and  enfeebled,  the  most  evident  truths  are  rejected  with  in- 
diflference,  or  perhaps  with  detestation,  till  we  seem  almost  inca- 
pable of  judging  by  any  other  rule,  than  that  of  our  passions,  our 
interest,  or  the  opinions  of  our  party. 

We  are  all  prone  to  this  great  weakness,  to  say  no  worse  of  it; 
and  if  each  one  of  us  would  spend  that  time  in  examining  its  influ- 
ence on  himself,  which  is  spent  in  casting  the  reproach  on  others, 
how  would  the  shades  of  error  fly  before  truth's  illuminating  rays! 
If  every  one  would  spend  that  time  in  cultivating  a  spirit  of  can? 
dor,  which  he  spends  in  search  of  sophisms,  or  of  something 
worse,  to  support  the  opinions  of  his  party,  or  his  pride,  which  he 
is  resolved  to  defend  at  every  hazard,  how  delightfully  would 
.  truth  and  happiness  flow  in  upon  mankind! 
F 


d«  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

'  But  without  pretending  to  decide  who  is  most  guilty  of*  this 
evil,  christian  or  deist,  jew  or  gentile,  another  man  or  myself,  I 
only  'nention  it  here,  as  it  is  a  chief  cause  of  our  being  often  blind 
to  the  clearest  evidence,  wheth  r  that  evidence  be  contained  in 
an  argument,  or  in  a  first  principle,  as  the  fouiidation  of  it. 

f3th.  Lastly,  if  there  be  a  doubt  concerning  any  principle,  whe- 
ther it  be  self-evident  or  not,  there  are  several  tests  by  which  it 
can  be  tried. 

First,  if  it  be  self-evident,  every  man  of  common  understand- 
ing, and  in  his  right  mind,  is  capable  of  judging  of  it;  and  needs 
only  a  clear  statement  of  it,  to  perceive  that  there  is  something 
ia  it  tending  to  produce  conviction  that  it  is  a  truth:  of  course 
there  will  be  a  general  agreement  among  men  concerning  it,  so 
far  as  they  understand  it,  and  are  unbiassed  by  partiality.  Who 
can  doubt  that  men  generally  agree  in  such  truths  as  these; — 
There  is  a  m.aterial  world  of  earth  and  water,  on  which  we  live — 
There  are  men  in  this  world,  and  other  living  creatures — these 
are  living  creatures,  have  power  to  walk,  and  some  of  them 
to  fly — Men  have  power  to  think,  and  to  make  known  their 
thoughts  to  each  other.  Many  of  them  that  once  lived,  are  now 
dead — There,  is  a  difference  between  a  dead  man,  and  a  man  that 
is  alive. 

Does  any  person  want  arguments  to  prove  the  truth  of  these 
things.'*  No:  it  is  more  likely  that  many  will  almost  suspect  me 
of  a  partial  derau'gement,  for  gravely  laying  such  things  before 
them.  But  they  ought  to  be  informed,  that  some  of 
those  very  propositions  have  been  denied  by  several  of  our  philo- 
sophers or  wise  men,  Avhile  others  have  been  seriously  employed 
in  search  of  arguments  to  prove  them. 

Secondly,  when  a  proposition  appears  at  the  first  view  to  be  a 
truth,  and  yet  we  cannot  prove  it  by  any  argument,  but  such  as 
will  take  for  granted  the  very  thing  in  question,  this  is  an  evident 
mark  of  a  first  principle.  Several  examples  of  this  kind  have 
been  given,  to  which  we  may  add  the  following: 

I  lay  this  down  as  a  first  principle:  a  sound  argument  always 
contains  evidence  of  truth.  Now  if  I  refuse  to  take  this  for  grant- 
ed, how  will  I  prove  it?  Let  me  offer  what  argument  I  will  in  its 
support,  I  take  for  granted  the  very  thing  in  question;  otherwise 
1  suppose  my  argument,  whatever  it  is,  to  have  no  evidence, 
though  a  sound  one;  and,  therefore,  the  principle  is  left  just  as 
destitute  of  evidence  as  it  was  before  I  produced  my  argument. 
Thus  all^mcn  are  forced  to  admit  first  principles,  and  take  them 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^S 

ibr  granted,  or  their  boasted  reasoning  itself,  falls  lifeless   to  the 
ground. 

Tliirdly,  though  self-evident  truths  cannot  be  proved  by  direct 
reasoning,  yet  they  may  be  supported  by  argume»ts  ad  ubsurdimi: 
I  mean,  that  we  may  suppose  the  contrary  to  be  true,  and  shew  its 
consequences  to  ije  a  cliain  of  manifest  absurdities.  This  method 
of  reasoning  is  often  used  by  mathematicians,  and  it  may  be  ap- 
plied with  equal  force  to  any  other  subject,  when  self-evident  prin- 
ciples are  contradicted,  which,  alasl  is  but  too  common. 

For  an  example,  we  will  propose  this  as  a  first  principle:  Jl  de- 
gree of  credit  is  due  to  human  testimony.  Now  if  this  be  denied, 
we  can  suppose  the  contrary  to  be  true,  and  trace  its  consequen- 
ces, which  the  objector  is  forced  to  take  along  with  him,  or  give 
up  reason  as  well  as  common  sense. 

If  no  regard  is  due  to  human  testimony,  then  it  is  unreasonable 
to  believe  the  testimony  of  any  man  in  the  world,  otherwise  you 
say  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  which  is  incredible.  It  fol- 
lows, also,  that  no  man  in  the  right  exercise  of  his  reason,  will 
believe  any  thing  he  reads  in  history  concerning  Alexander,  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  General  Washington,  or  any  other  man. 

He  will  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  nation,  country  or 
city,  until  he  sees  it  himself,  nor  even  then,  if  his  senses  are  not  to 
be  ti'usted. 

When  he  is  informed  of  immediate  danger  from  savages,  or  oth- 
er hostilfi  enemies,  he  will  not  believe  it,  so  much  as  to  move  from 
his  seat,  until  he  sees  them  with  his  own  eyes,  and  thus  he  will 
become  an  easy  prey  to  their  barbarity. 

Children,  to  act  reasonably,  should  never  believe  the  testimony 
of  their  parents,  or  of  any  others;  that  there  is  danger  in  poisonous 
drugs,  or  any  thing  else,  till  they  make  the  trial  by  experience, 
and  thus  would  the  race  of  men  soon  perish  from  the  earth. 

These  and  such  like  absurdities,  are  insepariible  fi'om  the  prin- 
ciple, that  it  is  unreasonable  to  give  any  credit  to  human  testimony: 
and  hence  the  opposite  is  self-evidently  true. 

I  shall  frequently  have. occasion  to  use  this  method  of  reason- 
ing, perhaps,  through  the  present  essay,  because  I  may  find  it 
necessary  to  rescue  some  of  the  most  interesting  truths  from  the 
sophisms  under  which  they  have  been  concealed. 

For  a  farther  account  of  these  matters  I  refer  to  Reid's  Essays 
on  the  Intellectual  and  Active  Powers  of  Man.  I  might  support 
the  sentiments  here  advanced,  by  many  quotations  from  his  works, 
but  I  M  ill  close  the  present  section  by  the  following  quotation 
Irom  Dr.  Watts. 


4a  AN  ESSAY  UN  THE 

« Intelligence  relates  chiefly  to  tliose  abstracted  propositions 
which  carry  their  own  evidence  with  them,  and  admit  no  doubt 
about  them.  Our  perception  of  this  self-evidence  in  any  proposi 
tion  is  called  intelligence.  It  is  our  knowledge  of  those  first  princi- 
ples of  truth,  which  are,  as  it  were,  wrought  into  the  very  nature 
and  make  of  our  minds:  they  are  so  evident  in  themselves  to  every 
man  who  attends  to  them,  that  tliey  need  no  proof.  It  is  the  pre- 
rogative and  peculiar  excellence  of  these  propositions  that  they 
can  scarce  either  be  proved  or  denied:  they  cannot  easily  be  pro- 
ved, because  there  is  nothing  supposed  to  be  more  clear  and  cer- 
tain, from  which  an  argument  may  be  drawn  to  prove  them.  They 
eannot  well  be  denied,  because  their  own  evidence  is  so  bright 
and  convincing,  that  as  soon  as  the  terms  are  understood,  the  mind 
necessarily  assents;  such  are  these,  whatsoever  acteth  hath  a  be- 
ing; Nothing  has  no  properties;  a  part  is  less  than  the  whole; 
nothing  can  be  the  cause  of  itself." 

"  These  propositions  are  called  axioms,  or  maxims,  or  first 
principles;  these  are  the  very  foundations  of  all  improved  know- 
ledge and  reasonings,  and  on  that  account  these  have  been 
thought  to  be  intimate  propositions,  or  truths  born  with  us," 

<^  Some  suppose  that  a  great  part  of  the  knowledge  of  angels 
and  human  souls,  in  the  separate  state,  is  obtained  in  this  manner, 
namely,  by  such  an  immediate  view  of  things  in  their  own  nature, 
whieh  is  called  intuition." 

Logic:  or  the  right  use  of  reason,  page  162. 


SECTION  IV. 

Of  the  evidence  of  reasoning. 

Having  spoken  of  reasoning  in  the  preceediug  section,  to  show 
jts  connection  with  first  principles,  there  is  the  less  occasion  to 
dwell  largely  on  it  in  the  present. 

All  true  reasoning  consists  sinjply  in  tracing  the  connexion  of 
one  truth  with  another,  by  direct  argument;  or  in  tracing  the  con- 
nexion of  one  falsehood  witli  another,  not  to  establish  errors,  but 
to  exhibit  their  absurdity,  and  thereby  tp  establish  t]\e  opposite 
truth. 

All  direct  reasoning  must  stand  or  fall  with  these  two  proposi- 
tions: (1st.)  that  the  premises  of  every  true  conclusion  arc  either 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  it 

self-evident,  or  may  be  regularly  deduced  from  principles  that 
are  so.  (2d.)  That  every  regular  and  sound  argument  contains 
evidence  of  truth. 

All  indirect  reasonings,  or  arguments  ad  absurdum,  must  stand 
or  fall  with  this  principle,  that  truth  and  falsehood  are  necessa- 
rily opposite  to  each  other:  for  if  this  be  denied,  it  is  vain  for  us 
to  attempt  to  support  any  thing  as  a  truth,  by  shewing  that  its  op- 
posite leads  to  an  evident  absurdity,  because  the  whole  force  of 
the  reasoning  rests  upon  the  axiom,  that  truth  and  falsehood  stand 
in  necessary  and  invariable  opposition  to  each  other. 

That  a  true  conclusion  will  never  follow  from  false  premises,  is 
not  only  so  evident  in  itself,  that  the  contrary  is  ridiculous  to  any 
man  of  common  understanding;  but  it  is  a  matter  in  which  all  logi- 
cians have  agreed,  from  the  days  of  Aristotle  to  the  present  time; 
and  if  all  treatises  on  logic  w  ould  distinctly  exliibit  the  simple 
rules  of  reasoning,  and  separate  them  from  the  obscure  and  un- 
meaning jargon  of  the  schools,  I  presume  the  art  of  logic,  or  the 
right  method  of  reasoning,  would  become  an  art  of  great  respec- 
tability among  mankind. 

If  the  arts  and  sciences  are  disgraced  and  filled  with  perplexity, 
by  those  who  delight  to  darken  counsel  by  words  without  know- 
ledge, truth  and  reason  are  not  to  blame;  for  simplicity  and  per- 
spicuity are  the  strong  hold  of  both;  while  error  and  sophistry 
gladly  retire  from  the  light,  and  derive  great  advantage  from  the 
most  inpenetrable  and  profound  obscurity. 

A  few  short  quotations  from  Dr.  Watts,  who  is  acknowledged 
to  stand  among  tli<e  most  approved  logicians,  may  be  necessary  to 
set  the  matter  in  a  proper  light,  and  to  confirm  the  view  of  it  for 
which  I  contend. 

*'  The  third  operation  of  the  mind,"  says  he,  «is  reasoning,  which 
joins  several  propositions  together,  and  makes  a  syllogism,  that  is, 
an  argument  whereby  we  are  wont  to  infer  something  that  is  less 
known,  from  truths  which  are  more  evident. 

"  Axiom — Particular  propositions  are  contained  in  universals, 
and  may  be  inferred  frqm  them;  but  universals  are  not  contained 
in  particulars,  nor  can  be  inferred  from  them." 

"  Rule  II.  The  terms  in  the  conclusion  must  never  be  taken 
more  universally  than  they  are  in  the  premises." 

<'  Rule  IV.  If  one  of  the  premises  be  negative  the  conclusion 
fnust  be  negative." 

"Rule  V.  If  either  of  the  premises  be  particular,  the  conclu- 
sion  must  be  particular," 


43  \N  ESSAY  ON  THE 

"  These  two  lost  rules  are  sometimes  iniitcil  in  this  single  sen- 
tence: The  conclusion  always  follows  the  weaker  part  of  the  pi-e- 
mises." — Logic,  or  the  right  use  of  reason;  page  251 — 258, 

Now  if  all  sound  reasoning  consists  in  argument,  whereby 
we  are  wont  to  infer  something  tliat  is  less  known,  from  truths 
which  are  more  evident;  and  if  the  conclusion  always  follows  the 
weaker  part  of  the  premises;  it  is  very  obvious  not  only  that  both 
the  premises  must  be  true,  but  that  they  must  be  more  evident  in 
themselves,  than  the  conclusion  to  be  supported  by  them.  If 
either  of  the  premises  be  a  falsehood,  the  conclusion  certainly  is 
not  proved  to  be  a  truth.  If  either  of  the  premises  be  doubtful, 
the  conclusion  is  doubtful.  If  either  of  tbe  premises  be  an  hypo- 
thesis, the  conclusion  is  an  hypothesis. 

Consequently,  in  every  good  argument  the  premises  are  either 
self-evident,  or  must  themselves  be  proved  by  some  other  premi- 
ses, before  any  true  conclusion  can  be  inferred  from  them.  If 
they  are  to  be  proved  by  other  premises,  then  tho*e  others  must 
be  self-evident,  or  they  also  stand  in  need  of  proof:  thus  by  trac- 
ing the  matter  back,  we  clearly  perceive  that  all  true  con- 
clusions of  I'easoning  ultimately  resolve  themselves  in  those  ax- 
ioms which  stand  as  the  foundation  of  all  human  knowledge. 

Let  us  illustrate  this  matter  by  one  or  two  examples  from  the 
same  author. 

«  Every  human  virtue  is  to  be  sought  with  diligence;  prudence 
is  a  human  virtue;  tlierefore  prudence  is  to  be  sought  diligently." 

Logic  p.  257. 

Now  every  reasonable  man  at  once  perceives  that  this  conclu- 
sion depends  upon  the  truth  of  the  foregoing  propositions,  and  if 
either  of  them  be  false,  they  aftbrd  no  evidence  of  the  consequence 
inferred. 

That  every  human  virtue  is  to  be  sought  with  diligence,  is  an 
immediate  consequence  of  a  self-evident  truth  before  stated  ; 
namely,  that  all  mankind  ought  to  do  that  which  is  right,  and  a- 
void  doing  that  w  hich  is  wrong.  For  we  must  know  the  right  in  order 
to  do  it,  and  therefore  every  virtue  is  to  be  sought  with  diligence. 
If  the  first  truth  be  contradicted,  it  ©an  never  be  proved  by  direct 
argument,  but  only  by  shewing  the  absurdities  which  would  follow 
from  a  denial  of  it.  That  prudence  is  a  virtue,  is  evident,  be- 
cause it  tends  to  general  happiness,  and  the  contrary  to  misery : 
it  is  therefore  clearly  deducible  from  another  axiom,  which  hag 
been  before  examined. 

Again:     "  No  liar  is  fit  to  be  believed; 

Every  good  christian  is  fit  to  be  believed; 

liar." — Logic  p.  26  J,. 


FI.AN  OF  SALVATION.  43 

The  first  proposition  in  this  argument  is  a  clear  fleduction  from 
the  axiom,  that  triith,  rightlu  understood  and  believed^  tends  to  the 
happiness,  and  deceit  and  falsehood  to  the  misery  of  vwnkind. 
This  principle  has  indeed  been  questioned  by  Mr.  Hume,  as  well 
as  the  other  branches  of  human  knowledge;  but  his  authority  has 
but  little  M-eight  when  we  consider  that  he  questioned  the  exis- 
tence of  God,  of  angels,  of  earth  and  water,  of  sun,  moon  and  stars. 
of  human  souls  and  bodies,  and  believed  that  there  is  nothing  in 
existence  but  ideas  and  impressions.  Whether  the  ideas  were 
spiritual  or  coporeal,  I  have  never  been  informed:  and  as  to  the  im- 
pressions, it  seems, there  is  supposed  to  be  no  agent  to  make  them, 
and  no  soul  or  body  on  which  the  impression  can  be  made. 

The  second  proposition  is  a  clear  principle  of  revelation;  for  a 
christian  is  a  man  who  follows  tJie  precepts  and  example  of  Christ; 
all  deceit  and  lying  are  by  him  forbidden,  and  therefore  no  good 
christian  is  a  liar;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  no  liar  can  be  a 
good  christian. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  plain  that  all  our  reasonings 
must  ultimately  be  founded,  either  upon  self-evident  truths,  upon 
manifest  falsehoods,  or  upon  hypotheses,  which  have  been  invented 
by  the  flights  of  imagination  and  conjecture.  It  is  easy  to  affirm, 
that  such  things  cannot  be  immediately  distinguished  from  each 
other;  and  if  such  a  declaration  is  to  pass  for  truth,  we  are  at 
once  at  a  full  stand;  but  I  presume  a  better  method,  though  not  so 
short  an  one;  would  be  to  produce  examples  of  each  kind,  and  ap- 
peal to  the  dictates  of  common  sense.     The  examples  follow: 

Jxiom — The  soul  of  all  virtue  consists  in  a  perpetwal  will,  to 
honor  God  and  promote  the  general  happiness  of  man. 

Msurdity — The  soul  of  all  virtue  consists  in  a  perpetual  will 
to  disbelieve  and  abhor  the  Creator,  and  do  our  uttermost  to  de- 
stroy all  human  felicity. 

Hypotheses — Jupiter  was  created  twelve  hours  sooner  than  our 
earth.  The  philosophers  of  Europe  will  be  ten  times  wiser  at  the 
beginning  of  next  century,  than  men  have  ever  been  since  the  world 
was  made.  There  are  many  robberies  and  murders  eommilted  by 
the  inhabitants  of  the  moon. 

From  the  axiom,  many  interesting  conclusions  may  be  drawn, 
concerning  the  duties  of  mankind  in  the  various  relations  of  life. 

From  the  absurdity,  a  string  of  consequences  may  be  regularly 
deduced,  sufficient  to  shock  an  inquisitor,  and  to  insult  the  good 


4*  AN  ESSAY  bN  THE 

From  the  hypotheses,  we  might  build  mauy  castles  in  the  air,  to 
allure  and  impose  upon  the  human  mind;  but  though  we  should 
draw  our  conclusions  with  as  much  logical  regularity  as  ever  ap- 
peared in  any  mathematical  demonstration;  and  though  we  should 
rear  the  mighty  fabric  into  a  system  that  Mould  fill  twenty  vo- 
lumes, and  should  engage,  in  its  defence,  the  most  sublime  geniuses 
of  the  age,  yet  Mould  every  conclusion  remain  as  desititute  of  all 
rational  evidence,  as  the  hypothesis  on  which  it  was  founded. 

And  will  any  man,  but  an  idiot  or  a  lunatic,  seriously  profess 
to  be  incapable  of  perceiving  any  moi'e  evidence  in  one  of  those 
positions  than  in  another?  Will  any  man  affirm,  in  the  face  of 
Heaven,  that,  to  hitn,  they  all  appear  equally  evident,  and  that  he 
needs  proof  or  argument  to  satisfy  his  soul  of  the  truth  of  any  one 
of  them,  as  much  as  another?  To  such  a  man,  I  have  nothing 
more  to  say.  It  would  be  far  more  agreeable  for  me  to  spend  my 
time  in  casting  straws  against  the  wind,  than  seriously  to  reason 
with  him,  or  to  enter  into  the  amazing  depths  of  his  philosophy. 

It  is  true,  that  a  great  deal  depends  upon  confounding  hypothc- 
ses  with  first  principles,  and  upon  promoting  a  general  persua- 
sion, that  it  is  very  difficult,  or  altogether  impossible,  for  the  hu- 
man mind,  with  any  certainty,  to  distinguish  between  them:  for  if 
men  in  general  can  be  prevailfed  on  to  neglect  the  plain  and  im- 
mediate dictates  of  their  intelligence,  and  to  take  for  granted,  that 
their  faculties  are  incapable  of  furnishing  immediate  evidence  of 
any  proposition,  and  that  all  truth  must  be  proved  by  philosophi- 
cal arguments: — what  an  easy  matter  is  it  for  an  ingenious  man  to 
impose  upon  them  by  forming  a  conjecture,  and  by  artfully  con- 
cealing it  from  public  inspection,  to  put  on  the  appearance  of  most 
masterly  reasoning?  His  conclusions  are  drawn  with  beautiful 
regularity,  and  in  a  form  the  most  scientific  and  plausible;  the  hy- 
pothetical foundation  is  overlooked,  because  our  attention  is  di- 
verted from  it  by  the  symmetry  of  the  superstructure;  and  who 
can  suspect  any  deficiency  in  reasonings  so  conclusive  and  philo- 
sophical? I  grant  the  reasoning  may  be  unexceptionable,  as  to  the 
regularity  of  inferring  one  consequence  from  another;  but  let  it  be 
remembered  that  the  principle  whence  they  set  out,  was  a  mere 
conjecture,  destitute  of  evidence,  and  therefore  the  consequences 
deduced  from  it,  are  a  string  of  fanciful  opinions,  drawn  from  an 
unsupported  fiction,  and  imposed  upon  the  world  as  the  genuine 
productions  of  sound  and  unadulterated  reason. 

One  or  two  examples  may  suffice  to  illustrate  and  confirm  thi? 
tiew  of  the  subject. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATIOI^.  45 

<*  Are  \ve  td  suppose,"  says  Mr.  Paine,  "that  every  world,  in 
the  Ijoundless  creation,  had  an  Eve,  an  apple,  a  serpent,  and  a  Re- 
deemer? In  this  case,  the  person,  who  is  irreverently  called  the 
Son  of  God,  and  sometimes  God  hiraself,  would  have  nothing  else 
to  do,  than  to  travel  from  world  to  Morld,  in  an  endless  soccession 
of  death,  with  scarcely  a  momentary  interval  of  life." 

^ge  of  reason,  part  1.  page  69. 

Thus  it  would  appear,  if  revelation  be  true,  respecting  our  need 
-«i;f  a  Redeemer,  that  Christ  must  have  suffered  often  since  the  fouv,' 
dation  of  the  world.  And  it  equally  follows  that  all  the  other 
worlds,  "  in  the  boundless  creation,"  must  have  a  bible  for  their 
'instruction:  they  must  have  ministers,  magistrates,  and  physicians: 
they  must  have  representatives,  governors,  lawyers  and  judges: 
i\vij  must  have  penalties,  prisons,  penitentiaries,  and  hangmen: 
and  they  must  have  swords,  muskets  and  great  guns,  to  carry  on 
their  wars,  and  acquire  "  military  glory."  In  this  way,  it  would 
be  easy  to  multiply  our  conclusions,  until  we  should  form  a  poli- 
tical and  military  system  for  the  inhabitants  of  Jupiter.  We  might 
amuse  ourselves  with  the  philosophical  ideas  of  men  chasing 
foxes  in  the  moon,  and  almost  fancy  we  can  hear  the  report  of  the 
enormous  guns  discharged  by  the  armies  of-Georgium  Sidus! 

But  let  not  imagination  fly  too  high;  let  her  pliant  wings  be  res- 
trained a  little,  till  we  pause  a  few  moments,  and  enquire,  whence 
are  all  these  wonderful  conclusions."*  Common  sense  gives  a  secret 
whisper  to  the  soul,  and  says,  All  these  interesting  matters  are 
built  upon  this  solitary  unsupported  hypothesis:  that  every  world 
in  the  boundless  creation,  is  inhabited  by  just  such  men  and  women, 
and  other  animals,  as  we  see  walking  up  and  down  opon  the  face 
of  our  world. 

I  doubt  not  but  many  of  Mr.  Paine's  jovial  and  tame  disciples 
have  not  only  been  convinced  and  established  by  such  flimsy  argu- 
ments, but  have  been  highly  delighted  at  such  a  masterly  display 
■of  philosophical  genius,  as  they  see  exhibited  in  this  humorous 
argument,  conoerning  "An  Eve,  an  apple,  a  serpent,  and  a  Redeem- 
er:" but  I  hope  there  is  good  sense  enough  left  in  our  country,  a» 
well  as  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  to  see  through  the  veil  of  so- 
phistry, and  to  decide  that  an  age  of  reason,  and  an  age  of  ridicule 
and  conjecture,  are  very  different  things. 

Let  us  produce  another  example  of  more  magnitude,  and  one 
which  has  made  a  great  noise  in  the  philosophic  world. 

We  will    state   two  propositions,    which  stand   against  eacli 
G 


4ff  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

other,  andlet  tlie  reader  judge  which  appears   most  like  a  self- 
.evident  truth. 

1.  God  has  given  us  the  sense  2.  By  the  sense  of  seeing, 
of  seeing  and  hearing,  and  oth-  hearing,  feeling,  tasting  and 
cr  senses,  whereby  we  immedi-  smelling,  we  perceive  nothing 
ately  perceive  many  external  but  ideas  in  oitr  frroin;  and  all  the 
objects,  with  an  immediate  con-  knowledge  we  can  have,  of  any 
viction  of  their  present  exist-  thing  in  the  world,  is  by  iw/ere«ce 
ence.  from  the  ideas  which   we  per- 

ceive. 
Which  of  these  positions  are  we  to  receive  as  an  axiom  of 
truth,  on  which  to  build  a  system?  Which  of  the  two  appears  te 
stand  most  in  need  of  argument  to  prove  it?  Is  it  enough  for  a  man 
to  tell  us,  very  gravely,  that  the  first  is  a  vulgar  error,  and  the 
other  is  altogether  philosophical?  So  would  his  holiness,  in  St. 
Peter's  chair,  inform  us,  that  we  must  contradict  our  senses,  and  be- 
lieve that  a  piece  of  bread  is  really  a  god,  otherwise  we  are  vul- 
gar heretics  that  have  no  just  ideas  of  the  true  divinity. 

"  It  seems  evident,"  says  Mr  Hume,  "that  men  are  carried  by  a 
natural  instinct,  or  prepossession,  to  repose  faith  in  their  sensesj 
and  that  without  any  reasoning,  or  even  almost  before  the  use  of 
reason,  we  always  suppose  an  external  universe,  which  depends 
not  on  our  perception,  but  would  exist,  though  we  and  every  sen- 
sible creature  w  ere  absent  or  annihilated. 

"But  this  universal  and  primary  notion,  of  all  men,  is  soon  des- 
troyed by  the  slightest  philosophy  which  teaches  us,  that  nothing 
can  ever  be  present  to  the  mind,  but  an  image  or  perception,  and 
that  the  senses  are  only  the  inlets  through  which  these  images 
are  received,  without  being  ever  able  to  produce  any  immediate 
intercourse  between  the  mind  and  the  object." 

This  philosophy  has  been  very  fully  examined  by  Dr.  Reid, 
to  whom  I  must  again  refer  the  reader.  See  his  Essays,  vol.  1.  p. 
205.  All  I  have  to  do  with  the  matter,  is  to  illustrate  the  differ- 
ence between  a  first  principle  and  an  hypothesis,  as  the  proper 
ground  of  reasoning. 

If  "this  universal  and  primary  notion  of  all  men"  be  really 
true,  that  there  is  "  an  external  universe"  which  we  perceive  by 
means  of  our  senses,  then  the  science  of  astronomy  has  a  solid 
foundation; — then  navigators  and  surveyors  of  land  are  really 
measuring  the  parts  of  an  external  universe,  and  are  not  employed 
in  marking  the  distance  of  one  idea  from  another  in  their  brains.  If 
<his  "  natural  instinct,"  by  which  we  are  led  "  to  repose  faith  in  ouj. 


PLAK  OF  SALVATION.  *y 

senses,"  be  permitted  to  stand  firm,  then  meolianical  employments, 
merchandise,  and  agriculture  are  preserved  from  metaphysical 
annihilation,  and  the  husbandman,  when  following  his  plow,  is 
really  making  a  furrow  upon  solid  ground,  and  not  upon  an  idea 
in  his  brain.  AVhen  he  returns  from  the  labours  of  the  day,  he 
finds  a  real  house,  composed  of  certain  parts  of  "  an  external 
universe;"  his  wife  and  children  are  all  real  beings,  and  he  is  ena- 
bled to  enjoy  an  "  immediate  intercourse"  M'ith  them.  But  if  he 
had  "the  slightest  philosophy,"  it  seems,  this  universal  and  pri- 
mary notion  of  all  men  would  be  soon  destroyed;"  and  he  would 
immediately  make  the  astonishing  discovery  that  the  house,  which 
sheltered  him  from  the  storm,  was  nothing  but  an  enormous  idea 
that  contained  his  whole  family  in  its  bosom!  Being  fully  instruct- 
ed in  the  metaphysical  transubstantiation,  he  would  understand 
that  on  his  wedding  day  he  was  married  to  an  idea,  and  that  his 
ehildren  are  all  young  ideas,  growing  up  like  olive  plants  around 
(tlie  idea  of)  his  table. 

Mr.  Hume,  or  others,  would  perhaps  reprove  me  for  descending 
to  such  vulgar  illustrations,  and  inform  me  that  these  are  matter* 
too  serious  and  important  to  be  trifled  with  in  this  manner;  and  I 
suspect  that  some  learned  doctors  of  divinity,  would  be  apt  to  give 
a  similar  rebuke,  in  defence  of  the  Holy  Eucharist;  but  if  I  have 
drawn  any  wrong  conclusion  it  must  be  imputed  to  my  ignorance, 
for  I  really  thought  these  consequences  would  follow,  if  it  be  real- 
ly true,  that  we  see,  and  hear,  and  feel  nothing  but  ideas.  But  per- 
haps I  do  not  understand  the  subject  rightly:  let  us  attend  to  those 
riews  of  the  matter  "  which  philosophy  teaches  us." 

"But  this  universal  and  primary  notion  of  all  men  is  soon  des- 
troyed by  the  sliji;htest  philosophy,  which  teaches  us,  that  nothing 
can  ever  be  present  to  the  mind,  but  an  image  or  perception." 

Is  Mr.  Hume  right  in  saying  that  philosophy  teaches  this  ?  Dr> 
Reid  says  he  is  right,  and  that  this  had  been  taken  for  granted  as 
a  first  principle  of  philosophy,  for  more  than  a  thousand  years. 
And  it  appears  that  Mr.  Locke,  though  a  man  of  a  most  amiable, 
candid,  and  penetrating  mind,  unhappily  received  the  same  theory, 
and  took  it  for  granted  without  examination.  When  speaking  of 
the  word,  idea,  he  says,  "  I  have  used  it  to  express  whatever  is 
meant  by  fantasm,  notion,  species,  or  whatever  it  is  which  the 
mind  can  be  employed  about  in  thinking,  and  I  could  not  avoid 
frequently  u?ing  it. 

"  But  what  shall  be  here  the  criterion  ^  How  shall  the  mind, 
when  it  perceives  nothing  but  its  own  ideas,  know  that  they  agree- 


4»  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

with  things  thcmselvps?  This,  though  it  seems  not  to  want  difii- 
culty,  yet  1  think  there  are  two  sorts  of  ideas  that  we  may  be  as- 
sured agree  with  things."  See  the  introduction  to  Locke'^s  Essay  on 
Huma  n  Under st a  nding. 

Thus  is  Mr.  Hume  right  when  he  informs  us  what  philosophy 
teaches,  and  his  position,  '^  That  nothing  can  ever  be  present 
to  the  mind  but  an  image  or  perception,"  is  explained  by  Mr. 
Locke,  Mhen  he  says  '^  The  mind  perceives  nothing  but  its  own 
ideas." 

Let  the  question  stand  clear  of  every  embarrassment,  as  truth 
delights  to  stand.  I  am  now  sitting  on  this  chair,  with  the  paper 
before  me;  on  my  Hght  hand  I  see  a  number  of  books  of  different 
sizes;  Now  1  want  to  know,  whether  I  really  perceive  this  chair 
and  paper,  that  table  and  those  books,  or  not. 

Answer:  "  Nothing  can  ever  be  present  to  the  mind  but  an  image 
or  perception."  I  do  not  ask  whether  the  books  be  present  to  my 
mind,  but  whether  I  now  perceive  them,  and  am  now  thinking 
about  them?  Answer;  the  word  idea  signifies  "  whatever  it  is 
which  the  mind  can  be  employed  about  in  thinking.  The  mind 
perceives  nothing  but  its  own  ideas."  While  I  hold  this  book  in 
my  hand,  then,  and  look  at  it,  am  I  to  suppose  that  I  perceivq 
the  book  and  the  idea  at  the  same  time,  and  am  thinking 
about  them  both.?  If  it  be  granted,  that  I  really  perceive  the 
book,  and  am  now  tliinking  of  it,  this  is  all  I  ask:  the  thing 
which  I  now  see  and  feel  I  perceive  to  be  a  real  book,  con- 
taining the  Holy  Evangelists  of  Almighty  God,  composed  of 
solid  paper,  leather,  and  printed  letters  variously  arranged. — 
Grant  me  this,  and  I  find  no  occasion  for  the  idea  of  a  book,  to 
enable  me  to  see  it;  and  could  I  perceive  the  idea  as  clearly  as 
I  now  perceive  the  book,  I  would  not  ask  for  arguments  to  prove 
its  existence.  And  if  it  be  said  that  the  idea  is  the  instrument  or 
medium  through  which,  or  by  means  of  which,  I  perceive  what  I 
/now  hold  in  my  hand,  this  I  feel  willing  to  concede,  provided  it  be 
granted  that  it  is  really  the  book  which  I  now  perceive,  and  about 
which  my  mind  is  now  employed  in  thinking.  The  idea  may 
gerve  as  an  instrument  or  medium  of  perception,  as  well  as  1  he 
eye  and  car,  or  any  other  organ  of  sensation;  and  no  harm  is  done, 
so  long  as  I  am  permitted  really  to  perceive  and  behold  this  exter- 
nal universe  which  God  has  created;  but  if  i4leas  should  usurp  the 
place  of  other  things,  and  obstruct  my  sight,  so  that  1  can  perceive 
nothing  but  themselves;  my  soul!  come  not  thou  into  their  secret, 
but  be  pontent  to  walk  the  old  beaten  path  of  common  sense. 

Bot  suppose  we  ^ndergtapd  thq  philosophers  really  and  literal- 


VLAS  OF  SALTATION.  4^ 

iy  to  ntean,  that  the  mind  perceives  nothing  but  its  own  ideas,  aad 
that  every  thing  is  an  idea  and  nothing  else,  about  which  it  ever 
can  be  employed  in  thinking:  are  we  permitted  to  take  the  conse- 
quences along  with  us  ?  or  must  we  sacrifice  our  reason  to  the  god- 
dess of  philosophy,  and  espouse  a  number  of  palpable  contradic- 
tions? 

If  I  perceive  nothing  but  ideas,  it  is  plain  that  this  pen,  which 
I  perceive,  is  an  idea;  held  by  the  idea  of  a  hand,  belonging  to  the 
idea  of  myself,  and  making  the  idea  of  writing,  upon  the  idea  of 
paper,  in  order  to  form  the  idea  of  a  book.  But  I  am  told  that  I 
form  the  idea  of  a  book,  whenever  I  think  about  it:  strange  then, 
that  after  studying  and  writing  so  long,  I  only  form  the  same 
idea  which  can  be  formed  in  a  moment.  I  am  now  thinking  of 
Mr.  Hume's,  history  of  England:  is  that  history  nothing  but  an 
idea.-*  If  so,  why  did  not  Mr.  Hume  form  the  idea  by  thinking 
of  the  English  history  for  a  few  moments,  without  so  much  ex- 
pense of  thought  and  labour,  to  bring  forth  this  great  work,  that 
the  ideas  of  men  might  read  it,  after  the  idea  of  death  should  take 
him  to  the  idea  of  eternity. 

I  do  not  mention  these  things  to  east  any  unfair  reproach  upon 
the  subject,  but  because  I  cannot  understand  it  in  any  other  way; 
and  I  hope  philosophers  will  not  blame  me  for  speaking  about  va- 
rious kinds  of  ideas,  since  they  declare  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
think  about  any  thing  else. 

"What  more  does  philosophy  teach  us.''  Answer:  "  That  the 
senses  are  only  the  inlets  through  which  these  images  are  receiv- 
ed." But  what  are  the  senses  themselves?  and  what  is  it  thqft 
receives  the  images  throHgh  them?  Are  they  all  ideas?  One 
idea  receives  another,  through  another;  and  I  do  not  see  why 
Ihey  might  not  as  well  have  continued  asunder,  and  wandered 
through  the  glooms  of  chaos,  with  the  atheistic  atoms,  which  have 
long  wandered  through  the  fathomless  abyss,  till  they  luckily  met 
together  to  form  the  idea  of  a  world. 

And  if  images  come  not  through  the  inlets  of  the  senses,  from 
whence  come  they?  from  the  "external  universe."  It  seems  then 
that  they  had  a  separate  existence  before  they  came  through  those 
inlets,  unless  yoij  say,  that  which  has  no  existence  can  move  from 
one  place  to  another,  through  certain  channels,  till  it  seats  itself 
in  the  human  brains.  And  if  ideas  had  a  separate  existence  before 
they  came  through  the  channel  of  our  senses,  millions  of  them 
might  have  floated  about  the  atmosphere,  or  some  where  else,  if 
no  living  creature  had  been  ever  made. 

',f*  The  Bouses  arc  only  the   inlets  through  M'hich  these  injages 


06  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

are  received,  without  ever  being  able  to  produce  any  immediate 
intercourse  between  the  mind  and  the  object." 

Is  Mr.  Hume  right  in  this  last  conclusion,  or  is  it  an  unjust  in- 
ference which  he  drew  from  the  doctrine  of  ideas?  I  think  his 
conclusion  is  perfectly  correct;  for  if  "The  mind  perceives  no- 
thing  but  its  own  ideas,"  and  if  the  word  idea  is  to  stand  for 
<«  whatever  it  is  which  the  mind  can  be  employed  about  in  think- 
ing," it  is  plain  that  the  mind  cannot  perceive  or  think  about  any 
object  but  its  own  ideas:  and  what  immediate  intercourse  is  there 
between  my  mind,  and  an  object,  which  I  can  neither  perceive  nor 
think  about? 

I  see  a  candle  standing  before  me:  but  the  thing  which  I  per- 
ceive and  think  about,  is  not  a  candle,  you  say,  but  the  idea  of  a 
candle.  The  idea,  it  is  said,  came  from  the  caudle,  through  the 
inlet  of  my  senses;  but  how  do  I  know  this?  did  I  perceive  it  com- 
ing from  the  candle?  if  so,  I  perceived  the  candle  as  well  as  the 
idea,  otherwise  I  could  not  see  the  one  coming  from  the  other.— 
And  if  I  perceived  the  candle,  as  the  idea  was  leaving  it,  I  no  lon- 
ger stood  in  need  of  the  idea,  to  enable  me  to  perceive  it.  But  if 
I  perceived  nothing  but  the  idea,  how  do  I  know  that  there  is  in 
fact  any  thing  else?  did  the  idea  bear  witness  that  it  came  from  a 
real  candle,  of  which  itself  was  the  image?  if  so,  it  enabled  me  to 
think  about  a  real  candle,  otherwise  you  say  it  brought  me  this  tes- 
timony, and  yet  did  not  enable  me  to  think  about  it,  and  of  course, 
I  was  left  as  much  in  the  dark  as  ever. 

When  an  object  is  before  me,  and  I  look  at  it,  I  am  told  that  I 
perceive  nothing  but  an  idea;  and  when  it  is  absent,  and  I  think 
about  it,  it  is  not  the  object  itself  that  I  think  about,  but  its  idea, 
or  image  in  my  mind:  consequently,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  have 
any  manner  of  evidence  for  the  existence  of  any  thing  else  but 
ideas,  otherwise  1  may  have  clear  evidence  for  the  existence  of 
what  I  can  neither  perceive  nor  think  about. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  to  trust  my  senses  and  consciousness,  I 
never  perceive  an  object  double:  when  my  friend  stands  before  me, 
I  see  him  very  clearly  to  be  one  and  undivided;  and  if  philosophy 
should  teach  me,  that  I,  at  the  same  time,  perceive  two  objects, 
one  being  the  real  body  of  my  friend,  and  the  other  his  image,  in 
my  brain,  this  is  a  new  discovery,  and  a  secret  for  which  I  can  find 
no  evidence  in  nature,  but  the  ipse  dixit  of  my  learned  instructor. 

When  my  friend  is  absent,  I  distinctly  remember  how  he  ap- 
peared when  present,  and  can  recollect  even  the  features  of  his 
countenance:  here  also  the  object  of  my  thought  is  one  and  no 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  51 

move.  I  am  not  thinking  of  two  objects,  precisely  of  tlie  same 
figure  and  appearance,  one  of  which  is  really  my  friend,  and  the 
other  his  image;  and  if  the  single  object  of  which  I  am  now  think- 
ing, be  nothing  but  an  image  or  idea,  it  is  plainly  impossible  for 
me  to  think  of  the  man  at  all.  When  he  was  present,  I  perceived 
him  standing  before  me;  the  object  I  now  conceive  or  think  about, 
is  the  very  same  I  then  perceived  by  means  of  my  senses;  and  if 
it  M  as  nothing  but  an  idea  I  then  perceived,  it  is  nothing  but  an 
idea  I  now  remember,  and  of  course,  my  knowledge  of  what  is  pre- 
sent, and  of  what  is  past,  consists  in  the  perception  of  ideas,  and 
in  nothing  else. 

I  do  really  perceive  my  friends,  when  they  are  present,  and  think 
about  them,  Avhcn  they  are  absent,  or  I  do  not;  if  I  do,  the  world 
.stands  firm  against  the  encroachments  of  metaphysics;  if  I  do  not, 
then  ideas  and  images  are  all  the  friends  I  ever  had — at  least  alJ 
I  have  ever  seen  or  thought  about,  since  the  first  moment  of  my  ex- 
istence. And  unless  you  can  prove  the  existence  of  that  to  me,  a 
single  thought  of  which  cannot  possibly  enter  into  my  mind,  I  re- 
main solitary  and  alone,  in  this  imaginary  universe,   with  only 

ideas  for  my  companions,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  life 

Thus  are  we  handsomely  conducted  to  universal  scepticism,  by  a 
chain  of  consequences,  clearly  deduced — from  what.' — from  a  hy- 
pothetical fiction,  that  denies  the  plainest  dictates  of  commoa 
sense,  and  overturns  all  human  knowledge. 

"  Mr.  Locke  had  taught  us,"  says  Dr.  Reid,  "that  all  the  im- 
mediate objects  of  human  knowledge,  are  ideas  in  the  mind:"  Bi- 
shop Berkeley, proceeding  upon  this  foundation,  demonstrated  very 
easily,  that  there  is  no  material  world.  And  he  thought,  that^ 
/or  the  purposes,  both  of  philosophy  and  religion,  we  should  find 
uo  loss,  but  great  benefit  in  the  w  ant  of  it.  But  the  Bishop,  as  be- 
came his  order,  was  unwilling  to  give  up  the  world  of  spirits.  He 
saw  very  well,  that  ideas  are  as  unfit  to  represent  spirits,  as  they 
are  to  represent  bodies.  Perhaps  he  saw,  that  if  we  perceive  on- 
ly the  ideas  of  spirits,  we  shall  find  the  same  difficulty  in  infer- 
ring their  real  existence  from  the  existence  of  their  ideas,  as  we 
find  in  inferring  the  existence  of  matter  from  the  idea  of  it;  and 
Therefore,  while  he  gives  up  the  material  world,  in  favor  of  the 
system  of  ideas,  he  gives  up  one  half  of  that  system  in  favor  of 
the  world  of  spirits:  and  maintains,  that  we  can,  without  ideas, 
think,  and  speak,  and  reason,  intelligibly  about  spirits,  and  what 
belongs  to  them. 

••  Mr,  Hume  shows  no  such  partiality  ia  j'avaur  of  the  world  of 


55  AN  ES8AY  ON  THE 

spirits.  He  adopts  the  theory  of  ideas  in  its  full  extent:  and,  in 
Consequence,  shows  that  there  is  neither  matter  nor  aiiud  in  the 
universe;  nothing  but  impressions  and  ideas.  What  we  call  a 
body,  is  only  a  bundle  of  sensations;  and  what  we  call  the  mind, 
is  only  a  bundle  of  thoughts,  passions,  and  emotions,  without 
any  subject. 

"  Some  ages  lience,  it  will  perhaps  be  looked  upon  as  a  curioui 
anecdote,  that  two  philosophers  of  the  18th  century,  of  very  dis- 
tinguisli£d  rank,  were  led  by  a  philosophical  hypothesis;  one,  t« 
disbelieve  the  existence  of  matter;  and  the  other,  to  disbelieve  the 
existence  both  of  matter  and  of  mind.  Such  an  anecdote,  may  not 
be  uninstructive,  if  it  prove  a  warning  to  philosophers  to  beware 
of  hypotheses,  especially  when  they  lead  to  conclusions  which 
contradict  the  principles,  upon  which  all  men  of  common  sense 
must  act  in  common  life." — Essay  II.  Chap.  XII.  p.  191. 

When  I  consider  that  these  are  the  natural  productions  of  hy- 
pothetical reasoning,  I  no  longer  wonder  that  men  of  common  un- 
derstanding, are  suspicious  of  that  thing  called  philosophy.  I 
am  no  more  surprised  that  the  term,  metaphysics,  is  a  word  which 
carries  something  gloomy  to  the  human  mind;  or  that  men  in  gen- 
eral should  be  reluctant  to  enter  into  a  fantastical  wilderness, 
where  they  will  be  in  such  imminent  danger  of  losing  body  and 
soul  together,  in  a  fog  of  species,  fantasms,  ideas,  images  and 
chimerical  impressions. 

This,  together  with  the  fantasms  of  Popery,  has  given  birth 
to  that  reproach,  which  has  sometimes  been  cast  upon  "the  noble 
faculty,"  as  Mr.  Fletcher  terms  it,  "which  chiefly  distinguishes 
us  from  brutes."  This  has  caused  many  to  undervalue  the  noble 
gift  of  reason,  and  to  discourage  the  regular  and  diligent  improve* 
ment  of  our  intellectual  powers.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
those  ideal  conjectures,  and  atheistic  conclusions,  are  as  opposite 
to  true  reasoning,  as  darkness  is  opposite  to  light,  and  truth  to  hy- 
potheses and  absurdity. 

"  When  we  find  philosophers  maintaining,"  says  Dr  Reid, 
"  That  there  is  no  heat  in  the  fire,  nor  colour  in  the  rainbow:  when 
we  find  the  gravest  philosophers,/rojnl>es  Cartes  down  to  Bishop 
Berkeley,  mustering  up  arguments  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  ma- 
terial world,  and  unable  to  find  any  that  will  bear  examination: 
wheu  we  find  Bishop  Berkeley  and  Mr.  Hume,  the  acutest 
metaphysicians  of  the  age,  maintaining  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  matter  in  the  universe;  that  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  the  earth 
uhich  we  inhabit,  our  own  bodies,  and  those  of  our  friends,  are 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^ 

dniy  ideas  in  our  minds,  and  have  no  existence  but  in  thought: 
when  we  find  the  last  maintaining  that  there  is  neither  body  nor 
Blind;  nothing  in  nature  but  ideas  and  impressions,  without  any 
substance  on  which  they  are  impressed;  that  there  is  no  certainty, 
iior  indeed  probability,  in  mathematical  axioms;  T  say,  when  we 
consider  such  extravagances  of  many  of  the  most  acute  writers  on 
this  subject,  we  may  be  apt  to  think  the  whole  to  be  only  a  dream 
of  fanciful  men,  who  have  entangled  themselves  in  cobwebs  spun 
out  of  their  own  brain.  But  we  ought  to  consider,  that  the  more 
elosely  and  ingeniously  men  reason  from  false  principles,  the 
more  absurdities  they  will  be  led  into;  and  when  such  absurdities 
help  to  bring  to  light  the  false  principles  from  which  they  are 
drawn,  they  may  be  the  more  easily  forgiven."  Essay  1.  chap.  vi. 
page  73. 

If  all  lovers  of  truth  would  consider  the  matter  according  to 
this  just  and  candid  representation,  they  would  find  no  cause  to  in- 
dulge that  misplaced  indignity  which  has  sometimes  been  cast 
upon  the  exercise  of  our  reason,  in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  merely 
because  our  rational  faculties  may  be  abused  or  misapplied.  We 
should  hear  no  more  complaints  of  the  great  uncertainty  there  is 
in  all  subjects  relating  to  the  mind,  and  its  intellectual  powers. 
What  subject  will  not  be  uncertain,  if  men  suffer  themselves  to 
beat  the  air  with  wild  and  fanciful  conjectures,  that  are  repugn 
nant  to  truths  the  most  evident  that  can  be  presented  to  the  hu- 
man understanding  ? 

The  theory  of  ideas,  has  not  only  proved  metaphysical  subjects 
to  be  very  uncertain;  but  it  has  proved  every  branch  of  human 
knowledge  to  be  equally  so,  "mathematical  axioms"  not  except- 
ed; and  if  we  are  to  judge  by  this  rule,  we  must  conclude  that  re- 
ligious doctrines  themselves,  are  as  uncertain  as  any  others;  for 
where  shall  we  find  a  greater  jargon  of  nonsense  and  contradic- 
tion, than  has  been  passed  upon  the  world,  under  the  name  of 
Christianity. 

The  truth  is,  there  will  never  be  any  regularity  or  consistency 
in  our  systems  till  we  agree  to  lay  the  foundation  in  first  princi- 
ples, carefully  examined,  before  we  raise  our  superstructure.  All 
probable  reasoning,  as  well  as  any  other,  is  founded  on  principles 
that  have  a  self-evident  probability.  This  matter  has  been  fully 
explained  by  the  author  last  quoted,  and  we  may  have  occasion 
to  notice  it  more  particularly  in  a  subsequent  section. 
H 


M  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

SECTION  V. 

Of  the  evidence  of  Revelation. 

By  the  term,  revelatioii,"we  understand  certain  truths  made 
known  to  the  human  mind,  by  the  supernatural  influence  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  with  a  clear  conviction,  not  only  that  the  matters 
thus  made  known  are  true,  but  that  the  knowledge  of  them  is  im- 
mediately from  God. 

They  are  accompanied  with  self-evident  conviction,  as  first 
principles  are,  with  this  difference  only,  that  intuitive  principles 
are  immediately  known  to  be  true,  and  those  which  are  revealed, 
are  not  only  known  certainly  to  be  true,  but  are  also  known  to  be 
immediately  from  God,  by  a  supernatural  communication. 
Let  us  consider  Paul  on  his  passage  to  Rome:  he  had 
certain  evidence  of  the  truth  of  these  two  propositions: 
1st,  Tliat  they  were  then  driven  and  tossed  upon  the  rolling 
billows,  by  a  dreadful  storm.  2d,  That  the  ship  would  be  destroyed, 
but  that  the  men  would  all  escape  with  their  lives,  to  the  shore  of  a 
certain  island.  His  knowledge  of  both  these  truths  was  immedi- 
ate and  self-evident;  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  be  more  certain 
of  the  latter  than  the  former,  though  the  latter  was  received  by 
immediate  revelation,  and  the  other  was  a  truth  discovered  in  a 
natural  way,  and  was  as  well  known  by  every  man  on  board  as 
by  himself. 

God  was  as  truly  the  author  of  his  knowledge  of  the  former,  as 
of  the  latter:  he  gave  him  a  natural  conviction  of  the  one,  by  means 
of  his  senses;  he  gave  him  a  supernatural  conviction  of  the  other, 
by  means  of  a  divine  influence  upon  his  consciousness;  and  the  only 
difference  of  the  cases  consisted  in  this,  that  in  the  latter  case  he 
received  his  knowledge  by  an  immediate  communication  from  his 
Maker;  in  the  former,  by  that  constitution  of  his  mind,  which  God 
Lad  established  in  his  original  formation.  And  had  Paul  believed 
that  God  stamped  a  lie  upon  his  original  csnstitution,  on  purpose 
to  deceive  him,  he  might  with  equal  reason  have  recei\  ed  the  pre- 
sent i-evelation  as  a  lie  that  ought  not  to  be  regarded;  for  its  truth 
was  so  essentially  connected  with  the  veracity  of  his  senses,  that 
a  denial  of  the  latter  would  be  an  equal  contradiction  of  the  for- 
mer. If  it  was  not  true  that  they  were  then  tossed  upon  the  ocean, 
it  could  not  be  true,  that  th\^  would  be  directly  removed  from  the 


PLAN  OF  SALVATIO^fj  65 

ocean  to  a  certain  island.  So  that  the  man  who  discredits  his 
senses  and  other  natural  faculties,  gives  the  lie  to  God,  as  immedi- 
ately as  the  prophets  and  apostles  would  have  done,  had  they  re- 
fused to  believe  the  truth  of  those  revelations  which  they  received. 

The  ridiculous  objection  of  scepticism  will  hold  good  in  both 
cases  alike;  for  in  neither  case  can  the  absolute  impossibility  of 
being  mistaken  be  made  appear,  in  any  other  way  than  by  taking 
for  granted  the  truth  of  the  very  faculties  in  question.  And  for 
us  to  refuse  to  give  them  any  credit,  until  other  faculties  are  given 
by  which  to  judge  of  their  veracity,  and  of  the  abstract  impossi- 
bility of  their  being  fallacious,  is  nothing  more  nor  less,  than  to  say 
to  Almighty  God,  "  our  profound  and  ingenious  philosophy  refu- 
ses to  give  thee  any  credit,  till  thou  shalt  give  us  other  faculties 
whereby  we  may  sit  in  judgment  upon  those  which  we  now  pos- 
sess: and  as  there  will  still  be  an  abstract  possibility  that  those 
others  may  also  be  fallacious,  we  shall  require  another  set,  where- 
by we  may  judge  of  them:  and  as  the  third  set  may  also  be  falla- 
cious, we  must  require  a  fourth  and  so  on  ad  injinitum.^^  Such  whim- 
sical and  inveterate  unbelief,  is  not  only  a  ridiculous  insult  to  all 
reason,  but  it  is  a  principle  of  deep  and  hateful  immorality,  and  is, 
I  presume,  amain  pillar  of  all  the  wickedness  that  ever  prevailed 
in  either  earth  or  hell. 

That  God  is  able  to  make  such  a  supernatural  communication 
to  any  human  mind,  is  acknowledged  even  by  Thomas  Pain,  and 
the  fact  of  his  having  done  so,  is  not  absolutely  denied  by  him; 
nay,  it  is  admitted,  for  the  sake  of  a  case,  that  such  revelations 
have  been  given;  but  the  evidence  of  it,  he  says,  can  never  be  com- 
municated from  one  man  to  another.  His  words  are  these:  "  But 
admitting,  for  the  sake  of  a  case,  that  something  has  been  revealed 
to  a  certain  person,  and  not  revealed  to  any  other  person,  it  is  re- 
velation to  that  person  only.  When  he  tells  it  to  a  second  person, 
a  second  to  a  third,  a  third  to  a  fourth,  and  so  on,  it  ceases  to  be 
revelation  to  all  those;  it  is  revelation  to  the  first  person 
only,  and  hearsay  to  every  other,  and  consequently,  they  are  not 
obliged  to  believe  it."    Jlge  of  reason.,  part,  i.page  8. 

That  it  is  immediate  revelation  to  the  first  person  only,  is  grant. 
ed;  and  it  can  never  become  such  a  revelation  to  any  other  mind, 
till  a  similar  communication  from  God  sliall  give  him  a  similar 
conviction  of  its  truth,  and  not  of  its  truth  only,  but  of  the  divine 
influence  by  which  it  was  revealed. 

But  the  question  is,  whether  a  true  revelation  made  to  one  man, 
tvill  become  faJse  by  hifs  declaring  it  to  another;  and  whether  no 


56  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

evidence  ought  to  convince  the  other,  but  anew  revelation  to  him- 
self, to  prove  the  reality  of  the  one  attested  by  his  neighbour? 
That  mere  hearsay  is  not  sufficient  evidence,  we  freely  acknow- 
ledge; and  1  presume  our  adversaries  will  acknowledge  as  freely, 
that  a  truth  communicated  from  God  to  a  certain  person  will  not 
become  a  falsehood,  Avhen  he  declares  it  to  another;  of  course,  the 
only  question  which  remains,  is,  whether  sufficient  evidence  can 
he  given  to  one  man,  that  a  revelation  has  been  made  to  another^ 
without  his  having  it  confirmed  by  another  revelation  exactly  si- 
milar? 

To  answer  this  in  the  negative,  as  Mr.  Paine  has  done,  is  to 
contradict,  1st,  all  the  evidence  of  common  sense;  2d,  the  evidence 
of  reasoning;  and  3d,  the  evidence  of  revelation  itself. 

1st.  The  evidence  of  common  sense.  From  the  signs  of  power, 
wisdom,  and  goodness,  in  the  eflect,  we  may  infer  with  certainty 
that  those  attributes  exist  in  the  cause  which  produced  it.  This 
is  a  first  principle,  self  evident  to  every  rational  being.  Deny 
it,  and  all  evidence  is  gone,  of  the  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness 
of  the  creator,  as  exhibited  in  the  grand  and  intelligent  arrange- 
ments of  the  works  of  creation.  Deny  it,  and  all  evidence  is  gone, 
of  there  being  an  intelligent  creature  upon  the  face  of  the  earth, 
excepting  the  consciousness  a  man  has  of  his  own  intelligence:  for 
it  is  impossible  for  me  to  see  another  man's  soul,  or  to  know  any 
thing  concerning  his  power,  wisdom  or  goodness,  but  what  I  learn 
from  the  signs  of  those  qualities  that  I  perceive  in  the  effects 
which  he  produces.  I  read  the  works  of  Milton,  and  sir  Isaac 
Newton,  and  infer  with  certainty  that  the  authors  were  men  of 
uncommon  penetration:  but  I  never  saw  the  bodies  of  those  in- 
genious men,  much  less  their  spirits,  and  if  the  axioms  above 
stated,  be  denied,  there  is  no  evidence  left  that  the  authors  of 
those  works  were  wise  men,  or  even  that  they  had  any  author. 
The  letters  might  have  jumbled  themselves  together  by  chance, 
and  formed  the  beautiful  poem  called  Paradise  Lost,  and  the  same 
mysterious  goddess  might  have  made  all  the  philosophical  disco- 
veries attributed  to  sir  Isaac  Newton! 

The  same  may  be  said  of  a  friend  standing  before  me:  I  per- 
ceive the  signs  of  intelligence  in  his  countenance,  actions,  or  lan- 
guage, and  infer  with  certainty  that  the  cause  of  this  peculiar  cast 
of  countenance,  action,  or  language,  is  an  intelligent  being.  I 
cannot  see  that  intelligence,  but  by  the  signs  of  it  in  the  eft'ectg 
■  produced;  these  signs  I  perceive  m  ith  intuitive  conviction;  and  if 
I  resist  this  conviction,  till  i  can  see  my  neighbour's  soul,  inde- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  gy 

pendent  of  these  signs,  or  till  the  qualities  of  his  mind  be  proved 
by  some  other  argument,  I  may  live  and  die  in  the  persuasion 
that  there  is  not  a  being  in  the  world  possessed  of  intelligence  be- 
side myself:  and  such  a  persuasion,  I  presume,  would  prove  that 
I  possess  but  a  very  scanty  share  of  it. 

Now  unless  it  can  be  made  appear,  that  God  is  not  able  to  ex- 
hibit signs  of  power,  wisdom  and  goodness,  in  proof  of  an  imme- 
diate revelation  given  to  some  of  his  creatures,  for  the  general 
benefit  of  all,  equal  to  those  which  appear  in  the  visible  creation, 
nothing  can  set  aside  the  conclusion,  that  such  a  revelation  given 
to  one  man,  may  be  proved  to  another,  but  a  denial  of  the  axiom 
above  mentioned:  and  a  denial  of  that,  saps  the  foundation  of  all 
human  knowledge,  and  at  once  precipitates  us  into  the  dark  chaos, 
«mong  the  atoms  and  blind  goddesses  of  atheism. 

2d.  The  evidence  of  reasoning  is  equally  abolished  by  our  au- 
thor's logic:  for  as  first  principles  are  the  foundation  of  all  sound 
reasoning,  if  they  be  denied,  the  superstructure  must  of  necessity 
fall  in  ruins  to  the  ground.  All  our  reasonings  conceniiug  the 
wisdom  or  folly,  the  virtue  or  vice,  of  this  or  any  former  genera- 
tion, are  sophistical  delusions,  if  the  axiom  be  not  true,  that  the 
$igns  of  such  qualities  appearing  in  the  effect,  affords  certain  evi- 
dence of  their  existence  in  the  cause. 

When  the  Lord  Jesus  calmed  the  roaring  elements,  by  saying, 
peace,  be  still,  and  evinced  by  other  immediate  acts  of  power,  that 
the  laws  of  nature  were  at  his  command,  in  proof  of  that  revela- 
tion which  he  brought  from  Heaven,  this,  according  to  our  au- 
thor's philosophy,  would  afford  no  evidence  of  divine  power,  and 
therefore  no  proof  of  a  revelation.  Then  the  creation  and  preser- 
vation of  the  world  affords  no  such  evidence;  and  the  building  of 
houses,  and  other  common  effects  produced  among  mankind,  af- 
ford no  evidence  of  human  power. 

Sd.  As  the  original  dictates  of  our  faculties  are  thus  denied,  our 
author,  it  seems,  would  be  as  far  from  conviction  as  ever,  if  an 
immediate  revelation  were  given,  to  prove  the  truth  of  our  scrip- 
tures; the  kind  of  evidence  which  he  professes  to  believe  alone 
sufficient:  for,  as  a  sceptic  can  say,  how  do  I  know  it  to  be  impos- 
sible for  my  senses  to  deceive  me?  how  do  I  know  but  the  world 
sprang  into  being  by  chance.^"  So  might  Thomas  Paine  have  said 
of  such  a  revelation:  how  do  I  know  it  to  be  impossible  for  me  to 
he  deceived  in  this  matter  }  Does  God  address  himself  to  my 
senses,  by  declaring  with  a  voice  from  Heaven,  that  the  Bible  is 
trne.^  but  I  mnst  remember  that  mv  senses  are  deceitful,  and  are 


58  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

not  to  be  trusted.  Does  he  address  himself  to  my  consciousness, 
and  produce  a  supernatural  conviction,  that  the  Bible  is  true?  but 
is  it  not  possible  for  this  to  be  enthusiasm?  And  suppose  it  is  not, 
by  what  argument  can  1  prove  that  my  consciousness  is  not  falla- 
cious. And  suppose  it  is  not,  hovv  can  i  prove  it  impossible  that 
Ood  should  communicate  a  falsehood  to  me? 

And  besides,  if  Christ  could  calm  the  boisterous  ocean,  either  by 
imposing  upon  the  people's  senses,  or  by  the  agency  of  devils, 
how  do  I  know  but  this  immediate  communication  to  my  mind  is 
from  some  devil  that  intends  to  deceive  me? 

Thus  it  is  evident,  that  a  new  revelation  itself,  would  be  insuf- 
ficient to  convince  those  who  are  resolved  to  reject  every  other 
kind  of  evidence,  and  our  boasted  champion  of  reason,  in  his 
i^Jge  of  Reason,^^  has  contradicted  reason,  and  boldly  defied  every 
kind  of  evidence  by  which  truth  is  communicated  to  the  human 
mind. 

Such  pitiful  unbelief  is  perfectly  incurable,  and  if  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  would  they  be  persuaded  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead. 

The  next  question  is,  whether  God  has  in  fact  exhibited  suffi- 
cient evidence  for  the  truth  of  revelation? 

It  is  an  easy  thing,  1  know,  for  a  person  to  affirm  that  he  has 
not;  and  so  it  is  for  an  atheist  to  affirm  that  the  earth  and  starry 
Heavens  aflFord  no  proof  of  a  Deity;  or  for  David  Hume,  esq.  to 
affirm  that  "the  slightest  philosophy  will  soon  destroy  the  uni- 
versal and  primary  notion  of  all  men,  that  there  is  an  external 
universe:"  but  as  those  philosophers  affect  to  be  so  very  unwil- 
ling that  any  thing  should  be  taken  for  granted  without  support 
of  argument,  I  hope  they  will  excuse  us  from  taking  their  asser- 
tions for  granted. 

The  arguments  in  support  of  Christianity  are  various  and  abun- 
dant: so  much  so,  that  my  present  plan  will  not  admit  of  a  full 
enumeration  of  them;  but,  as  I  have  made  the  assertion,  I  must 
mention  some  of  the  grounds  on  which  those  arguments  are  built. 

The  doctrines  of  Christianity  exhibit  the  wisdom  of  God;  its 
precepts  exhibit  his  holiness;  the  benevolence  of  its  design  and 
tendency  exhibits  his  goodness;  and  the  miracles  wrought  by  our 
Saviour  and  his  apostles,  displays  his  power  and  authority,  as  the 
fulfilment  of  his  promises  and  prophecies  does  his  veracity  and 
infinite  knowledge. 

For  the  two  first  classes  of  evidence,  we  must  appeal  the  Bible 
its«>lf.  especially  the  New  Testament,  where  alone  the  doctrines 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  69 

and  precepts  of  Christianity  are  to  be  found,  and  not  in  conclaves, 
creeds,  or  confessions  of  faith. 

For  the  third,  we  must  appeal  to  the  nature  of  man,  and  to  the 
nature  of  those  motives,  enjoyments  and  prospects,  which  the  re- 
ligion of  Jesus  proposes,  to  guard  him  against  misery,  to  subdue 
his  vices,  to  sweeten  his  earthly  comforts,  to  console  him  in  cala- 
mity, to  disarm  the  king  of  terrors,  and  to  ensure  him  a  happy  ex- 
istence forever. 

For  the  fourth,  we  must  appeal  to  human  testimony,  and  for 
the  fiftli  to  the  Bible,  in  conjunction  with  the  general  history  of 
the  world. 

As  the  premises  of  every  argument  must  first  be  known  to  con- 
tain evidence,  either  as  axioms  or  as  regular  deductions  therefrom, 
before  they  can  give  any  strength  to  the  conclusion;  so  revela- 
tion must  be  known  to  be  true,  by  its  correspondence  with  the 
human  faculties,  before  it  can  be  consistently  received  as  a  ground 
of  evidence  to  support  any  other  truth  whatever. 

Several  revelations  have  been  proposed  to  mankind,  as  being 
inspired  from  Heaven;  but  that  contained  in  the  Bible  is  the  only 
one,  that  has  been  able  to  stand  the  test  of  a  candid  and  rational 
examination.  It  has  been  examined  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  by 
friends  and  enemies,  by  priests  aud  infidels,  by  the  learned  and 
the  unlearned,  by  rustics  and  philosophers,  by  fools  and  wise  men. 
Its  evidence  shines  forth  as  it  goes  through  the  crucible,  and  it 
has  carried  conviction  to  a  Bacon,  Boyle,  Newton,  Hale,  Addison, 
Locke,  Littleton,  Reid,  Beatty,  Campbell,  Watts,  Wesley,  Fletch- 
er, and  an  innumerable  company  besides,  of  the  wisest  and  best  of 
men. 

Mean  time  it  has  been  contradicted  by  a  Hobbes,  Bolingbroke, 
Gibbon,  Hume,  Voltaire,  Paine,  Palmer,  and  other  metaphysicians, 
who  would  give  us  to  understand,  that,  however  this  priestly  re- 
velation may  carry  away  the  vulgar,  it  has  not  been  able  to  stand 
the  test  of  philosophy.  And  no  wonder,  since  earth  and  sea,  ani- 
mals and  vegetables,  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  and  the  very 
heavens  themselves,  have  been  unable  to  stand  this  test.  We 
must  have  a  revelation  made  up  of  nothing  but  ideas  and  impres- 
sions, before  it  will  stand  the  test  of  the  metaphysical  philoso- 

But  let  self-evident  principles  resume  their  native  dignity: 
let  reason  be  delivered  from  the  shackles  of  hypothesis  and  me- 
taphysical sophistry;  let  conscience  retain  her  authority  in  the 
human  bosom;  let  prejudice,  pride  and  malice  be  laid  aside;  let 


60  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

every  man  think  for  himself,  without  being  biased  by  priestly  iti* 
fallibility  on  the  one  hand,  or  philosophical  authority  on  the  other: 
then  let  liis  mind  be  regulated  by  the  calm  influence  of  humility; 
reflection  and  candour,  and  Christianity  has  nothing  to  fear. 

As  the  diligence  of  his  enquiry  increases,  the  beauties  of  revela- 
tion will  shine  around  him,  like  stars  iu  the  expanded  concave  of 
heaven.  Let  him  compare  the  doctrine  of  man's  apostaey,  with 
matter  of  fact,  and  daily  observation;  let  him  compare  the  doc- 
trine of  redemption  with  the  responsibility  of  man,  and  with  the 
Batureand  moral  government  of  God;  let  him  compare  the  digni- 
fied simplicity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  with  the  nature 
of  truth,  reason,  siiicerity  and  moral  goodness;  let  him  compare 
the  common  objections  of  infidels  to  the  objections  urged  by  athe- 
ists against  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  creation;  let  him  compare 
the  great  prospects  held  forth  in  the  bible,  with  his  native  desire 
and  need  of  an  immortal  life  to  come;  finally,  let  him  compare 
the  pure  morality  of  the  gospel,  to  his  own  consciousness  of  obli- 
gation to  God  and  man;  and  if  this  holy  religion,  as  it  has  been 
sometimes  scoftingly  termed,  does  not  recommend  itself  to  his  reason 
and  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God,  he  may  then,  as  an  intelligent 
being,  and  not  before,  give  up  the  Bible  and  go  some  where  else  to 
seek  the  proper  knowledge  of  his  Maker. 

I  can  do  little  more  at  present  than  suggest  some  of  the  general 
sources  of  evidence,  without  pursuing  them;  but  as  infidels  have 
one  argument  which  they  consider  most  masterly,  it  may  be  ne- 
.^sessary  to  dwell  upon  it  a  little  more  particularly. 

"  The  chief  support  of  this  revelation,  it  may  be  said  is  that  of 
miracles;  of  course  miracles  are  a  very  essential  part  of  the  evi- 
dence on  which  it  is  to  be  believed;  but  we  have  seen  no  miracles 
wrought  in  its  defence;  therefore  we  are  destitute  of  the  very  evi- 
dence on  which  your  bible  itself  professes  chiefly  to  rest  its  au- 
thority."    Answer: 

It  is  true  that  miracles  are  essential  to  the  giving  of  a  revelation 
from  God  to  man,  because  the  very  act  itself  is  truly  miraculous;  it 
is  also  necessary  that  it  should  be  delivered  to  others  by  prool  of 
miracles,  in  order  that  Divine  ^?0M'er  may  be  manifested  in  its  sup- 
port: but  this  is  only  a  part  of  the  evidence  in  favour  of  our  reli- 
gion, and  the  otherparts  arcsoessential,thattliis  alone  would  not  be 
sufficient:  for  if  there  were  no  displays  of  wisdom,  goodness  and 
holiness,  in  the  christian  religion,  1  presume  a  mere  exhibition  of 
power  alone  would  only  serve  to  confound  and  astonish  us. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  6^ 

Suppose  there  were  no  signs  of  wisdom  or  goodness  in  the  visi« 
ble  creation,  but  merely  of  power,  wouid  this  be  a  sufficient  proof 
of  the  god  whom  we  worship  ?  An  Almighty  God  without  wisdom 
and  goodness,  would  be  an  object  of  terror  and  dismay,  and  his 
presence  would  be  sufficient  to  cause  men  and  augels  to  long  for 
an  immediate  end  of  their  being.  Rather  than  live  under  a  mere 
government  of  might,  where  there  was  no  moral  attribute  to  regu- 
late the  destinies  of  creation,  every  intelligent  creature  would 
loathe  his  existence,  and  wish  to  drop  into  the  unconscious  re- 
gions of  annihilation.  But  as  the  power  of  our  Almighty  Father,  is 
unchangeably  employed  in  subserviency  to  perfect  goodness  and 
infinite  wisdom,  we  glory  in  his  omnipotence,  and  rest  securely 
under  the  shadow  of  his  wings. 

Now  a  revelation  from  such  a  God  must  bear  his  image  and  su- 
perscrijjtion:  miracles  are  necessary  to  display  his  power;  but  the 
revelation  given  must  also  illustrate  his  wisdom,  and  correspond 
vi'ith  every  moral  attribute  of  his  nature,  in  order  to  carry  convic- 
tion to  the  soul  of  man,  that  it  came  from  that  benevolent  and  Al- 
mighty Being,  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  the  sea, 
and  the  dry  land.  Miracles  cannot  be  spared,  any  more  than  the 
signs  of  power  can  be  spared,  that  are  exhibited  in  the  creation; 
but  it  is  as  improper  to  say  they  constitute  the  chief  part  of  the 
evidence,  as  it  is  to  say  the  omnipotence  of  God  constitutes  the  chief 
part  of  his  nature,  or  that  the  signs  of  omnipotence  are  the  prin- 
cipal part  of  the  evidence  given  of  his  nature,  in  the  heavens  whieh 
declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  which  shozveth  his  han- 
dy work. 

Thus  we  rectify  the  first  proposition  of  the  deistical  argument, 
that  miracles  are  the  chief  support  of  revelation.  But  as  ouf 
statements  imply,  nevertheless,  that  the  evidence  of  miracles  is  a 
part  of  the  evidence  which  cannot  be  spared,  we  must  now  notice 
their  second  proposition,  which  affirms,  that  all  men  in  these  lat- 
ter ages  are  destitute  of  this  kind  of  evidence.  I  hope  this  pro- 
position  may  be  shown  to  be  a  falsehood,  and  if  so,  their  conclu- 
sion is  good  for  nothing. 

In  the  days  of  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  the  evidence  of  mi- 
racles was  conveyed  to  the  minds  of  men,  through  the  medium  of 
their  senses;  in  all  succeeding  ages  the  same  evidence  has  been 
conveyed  through  the  medium  of  human  testimony.  That  a  degree 
of.credit  is  due  to  human  testimony,  has  been  already  established 
as  a  first  principle,  by  showing  the  palpable  absurdities  that  will 
ftoUow  from  a  denial  of  it;  and  as  some  philosophers  have  spurn- 
I 


p;8  AN  E«SAY  ON  THE 

ed  at  this  channel  of  commuuicalion,  so  they  have  equally  denied 
the  veracity  of  our  senses,  and  set  all  human  knowledge  at  defi- 
ance. 

What  a  despicable  figure  will  thatman  make  who  shall  undertake 
to  demonstrate  that  Christ  might  have  imposed  upon  the  senses  of 
the  thousands  of  mankind,  in  the  performance  of  those  great  mira- 
cles attributed  to  him  in  the  New  Testament!  or  to  demonstrate 
that  the  accounts  of  those  matters  might  have  been  written  in  the 
-days  of  Augustus  Cesar,  at  the  time  when  the  facts  are  said  to 
have  transpired,  without  affording  the  world  any  opportunity  to 
detect  such  fraudulent  and  pitiful  pretensions,  which  thousands  of 
living  witnessses  could  contradict  in  the  face  of  heaven. 

Most  of  our  objectors,  I  suspect,  are  beginning  to  be  ashamed  of 
this  method  of  philosophical  demonstration,  and  fondly  hope  to 
"obstruct  the  channel  of  human  testimony,  by  another  subterfuge. 

The  history  of  Jesus  Christ  say  they,  was  not  published  to  the 
-world  till  some  hundreds  of  years  after  those  great  events  are  said 
-to  have  occurred:  it  was  invented  in  after  ages,  and  has  succeeded 
in  imposing  upon  the  natural  credulity  of  the  vulgar;  but  philoso- 
phers can  see  through  the  fraud. 

And  what  but  hypothesis  can  philosophers  give  for  this  bold 
assertion  ?  They  affect  to  be  very  fond  of  demonstration,  and  in- 
sinuate that  no  other  kind  of  evidence  is  to  be  trusted;  but  w  hen 
the  secret  is  out,  we  find  they  are  only  fond  of  demonstration, 
when  something  is  to  be  proved  by  their  opponents;  when  proof  is 
called  for,  in  support  of  their  own  assertions  arbitrary  conjec- 
tures and  professions  of  superiority  to  the  vulgar,  appear  to  be  alto- 
gether sufficient. 

Those  great  events  are  said  to  have  transpired  in  the  reign  of 
Augustus  Cesar;  and  their  own  historians  have  informed  the 
world  that  the  Christian  religioiu  was  spread  through  the  Roman 
empire  in  less  than  half  a  century  afterwards:  the  history  of  those 
events,  as  narrated  by  the  evangelists,  declares  that  this  religion 
took  its  rise  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  proved  its  divinity  by  aston- 
ishing miracles  wrought  in  the  presence  of  thousands:  this  ac- 
count is  true,  or  it  is  not;  if  it  is,  all  infidels  are  fighting  against 
the  truth;  if  it  is  not,  then  the  christian  religion  rose  from  some- 
thing else,  as  the  world  very  well  knew;  therefore,  whenever  this 
pretended  history  came  out,  no  matter  w  hen  it  was,  every  man  ac- 
quainted with  Christianity  would  know  it  to  be  a  falsehood. 

If  these  accounts  were  not  published,  till  some  centuries  after 
the  facts  are  said  to  have  taken  place,  every  man  that  would  open 
his  eyes  and  read  them,  would  gee  falsehoed  upon   the  face  of 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  6S 

ihem,  fkr  more  clearly  than  any  man  ever  saw  images  upon  his 
brain;  for  the  authors  agree  to  declare  that  they  were  eye  witnes- 
ses of  the  facts  that  they  relate,  which  they  could  not  be  if  the  facts 
occurred  some  hundreds  of  years  before  they  were  born.  And  more- 
over, they  not  only  declare  they  were  eye  witnesses,  but  tliat  they 
wrote  their  history  and  their  epistles,  and  published  them  in  their 
own  time:  Peter,  who  was  one  of  the  chief  apostles  and  followers 
of  Jesus  Christ,  declares  that  his  beloved  brother  Paid  \\a.d  then 
published  several  of  his  epistles^  which  some  had  already  begun  to 
■wrest,  as  they  did  also  the  other  scriptures,  totheiroum  destruction. 
Luke  informs  us,  in  the  introduction  to  his  history,  that  several  ac- 
counts of  those  matters  had  been  published  by  others  before  he 
began  his  account;  and  manyother  references  might  be  enumerated 
in  proof  that  the  New  Testament  writers  openly  profess  to  be 
eye  and  ear  witnessses;  to  have  lived  in  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ, 
aod  to  have  published  their  accounts  to  that  generation.  But  if  those 
accounts  never  made  their  appearance  in  the  world  till  some  hun- 
dreds of  years  afterwards,  in  all  thase  particulars  they  would  car- 
ry conviction  of  their  being  the  production  of  deceivers,  to  every 
man  that  had  eyes  and  ears  to  see  and  hear  them. 

Thus,  if  our  objectors  theory  be  admitted,  with  all  their  con- 
tempt of  the  credulous  vulgar,  they  involve  themselves  in  a  cre- 
dulity similar  to  that  which  they  so  much  explode;  and  prove 
clearly  that  the  great  Roman  philosophers  and  historians  have 
failed  in  the  detection  of  a  fraud  that  might  be  detected  by  the 
common  sense  of  a  Hottentot. 

According  to  the  character  and  extraordinary  actions,  which  the 
New  Testament  ascribes  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  no  person  ever  lived 
whose  history  is  of  such  importance  to  mankind:  he  must  have 
been  the  greatest  and  the  best  personage  that  ever  appeared  in 
mortal  flesh,  or  else  Christianity  must  be  a  fraud  the  most  amazing 
and  unparalleled,  of  any  thing  that  has  ever  yet  appeared  among 
the  human  family.  This  religion,  if  true,  was  hot  hid  in  a  corner, 
but  blazed  out  in  the  face  of  open  day:  and  if  false,  it  must  have 
been  somehow  hid  in  a  corner,  more  secret,  deep  and  obscure,  than 
the  fantasms  of  Aristotle,  or  the  unexplored  and  secret  dwelling 
place  of  the  philosopher's  stone.  If  the  Lord  Jesus  was  in  fact 
controlling  the  elements  of  heaven  through  the  land  of  Judea, 
and  his  apostles  through  the  Roman  empire,  the  Gospel  is  true; 
if  they  were  only  attempting  to  do  such  things  by  slight  of  hand 
»r  the  art  of  magic,  were  the  people's  eyes,  or  the  historian's  pen? 
that  such  fraud*  should  succeed  and  silently  glide  dowa  to  poste- 


tii4<  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

rity?  If  the  history  of  those  great  matters  was  invented  and  pub- 
lished two  or  three  hundred  years  afterwards,  why  did  not  the 
wise  men  of  that  age  cast  it  at  once  into  the  fire,  or  favour  the 
world  with  some  account  of  the  hypocritical  stratagem?  And  if 
the  New  Testament  was  really  written  by  the  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists, but  never  made  its  appearance  till  some  centuries  after 
they  were  dead,  in  what  secret  corner  of  the  world  did  it  lie  con- 
cealed? 

Suppose  a  certain  person,  or  threescore  of  them,  united  if  you 
please,  should  some  centuries,  say  four  or  five  hundred  yearg 
hence,  publish  a  history  of  general  Washington,  professing 
themselves  to  be  the  authors  of  the  history,  and  that  they  were 
officers  ofthe  UnitedStatesarmy,actingforyearsunderhis immedi- 
atecommand:  suppose  this  history  should  state  thatgeneral  Wash- 
ington professed  to  be  the  Son  af  God,  and,  in  proof  of  it,  raised  se- 
veral dead  men  to  life,  eonqut-red  thousands  of  the  British  troops, by 
merely  pointing  his  sword  to  heaven,  and  led  his  own  army  across 
the  Delaware  bay  on  dry  gioinul;  having  first  caused  the  Maters  to 
stand  as  walls  on  either  hand:  would  this  be  really  such  a  puz- 
zling case,  that  ail  the  wise  men  of  America  and  Europe  together 
must  necessarily  fail  in  attempting  to  detect  the  imposture,  and 
would  be  obliged  to  yield  to  the  mighty  torrent,  and  let  the  delu* 
sion  descend  to  the  latest  posterity. 

Or  suppose  they  should  make  Martin  Luther  the  hero  of  their 
tale,  or  invent  some  other  name  and  attribute  it  to  a  man  who 
never  existed,  declaring  that  in  and  about  the  city  of  London, 
Paris  or  Philadelphia,  he  fed  five  thousand  men  with  five  small 
loaves  of  bread,  cured  hundreds  of  the  plague  or  yellow  fever  by 
the  simple  touch  of  his  finger,  and  raised  some  of  them  to  life  af- 
ter they  had  been  four  days  in  the  grave;  and  finally,  that  he  him- 
.  self  arose  from  the  dead,  appeared  to  more  than  five  hundred  of 
the  inhabitants,  and  afterwards  in  open  daylight  ascended  up  in- 
to heaven: — rwould  it  be  an  easy  matter  to  establish  these  won- 
ders, and  spread  them  over  the  earth  to  the  latest  generations? 
If  it  would,  let  deists  make  the  experiment,  and  after  carrying 
their  project  to  ji  sufficient  height,  they  can  lay  open  the  secret* 
and  thereby  produce  a  stronger  argument  against  Christianity 
than  the  wit  of  philosophers  has  been  able  to  muster  from  the 
days  of  Porphyry,  or  Julian,tothose  ofthe  heroical  Thomas  Paine. 

It  being  foreign  to  the  present  design  to  enter  into  a  regular  de- 
fence of  Christianity,  further  than  to  take  a  view  of  revelation 
fis  one  of  the  general  methods  whereby  the  Father  of  the  spirits  of 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  65 

ail  flesh,   conveys  a   knowledge  of  his   truth  to  the  human  miudj 
I  omit  any  farther  illustrations  of  the  present  argument. 

Any  candid  mind  may  perceive,  by  reflection,  that  the  more 
closely  (he  subject  is  examined,  the  more  manifest  it  will  appear, 
that  although  miracles  are  not  wrought  in  our  time,  yet  the  evi- 
dence oi' them  is  conveyed  to  us,  through  the  channel  of  human  testi- 
mony, as  well  as  to  the  ancient  Jews  and  Gentiles,  through  theme- 
dium  of  sensation;  and  he  who  rejects  one  of  these  means  of  com- 
munication, might  as  well  reject  the  other,  for  I  presume  as  great 
a  proportion  of  our  knowledge,  depends  upon  the  veracity  of  hu- 
man testimony,  as  upon  the  truth  of  our  senses;  and  if  we  reject 
either  of  them,  consistency  will  require  an  equal  surrender  of  ev- 
ery other  kind  of  evidence,  and  thus,  we  must  abandon  our- 
selves to  the  regions  of  universal  doubt,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  to  universal  ignorance. 

If  any  should  be  disposed  to  make  such  a  sacrifice,  and  give  up 
all  their  knowledge  to  get  clear  of  the  restraints  of  reason  and  re- 
ligion, we  must  leave  them  in  quiet  possession  of  their  retreat,  till 
something  more  powerful  than  argument  shall  rouse  them  from  their 
strange  and  philosophical  delirium.  The  gospel  has  been  offered  to 
their  acceptance,  to  use  the  words  of  bishop  Watson,  and  from  what- 
ever cause  they  reject  it,  I  cannot  but  esteem  their  case  to  be  dan- 
gerous. 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  the  evidence  of  miracles 
is  conveyed  to  us  in  its  whole  force,  or  in  the  same  degree  it  was 
conveyed  to  the  people  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour  and  his  apos- 
tles: miracles,  to  them,  were  self-evident,  being  addressed  imme- 
diately to  their  senses;  to  us  they  are  ascertained  by  the  deduc- 
tions of  reason.  We  take  our  stand  on  this  axiom,  that  some  de- 
gree of  credit  is  due  to  human  testimony;  we  reason  concerning 
the  degree  that  is  due  in  this  particular  ease;  w^e  find  the  number 
and  character  of  the  witnesses  to  be  unexceptionable;  we  find  their 
testimony  accompanied  with  such  circumstantial  marks  of  vera- 
city, that  we  cannot  suppose  it  false  without  involving  ourselves 
in  several  unaccountable.absurdities;  we  find  the  system  of  truth 
attested  by  them  accords  perfectly  with  the  holy  nature  of  God, 
and  with  the  unbiased  dictates  of  our  reason  and  conscience: 
Hence,  we  conclude  that  we  are  compelled  to  renounce  our  reason, 
or  to  believe  that  the  miracles  attested  by  the  apostles  were  really 
performed  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  proof  of  that  revelation 
which  the  goodness  of  God  has  transmitted  to  mankind. 

Will  philosopherf?  reject  this  eridencej  merely  because  it  is  de- 


ft6  APf  ESSAY  ON  THE 

rived  through  the  medium  of  inference  or  consequential  reasoning, 
and  not  through  the  immediate  dictates  of  sense? 

If  S)6,  it  would  seem  that  they  change  their  ground  as  conve- 
niency  may  require:  one  while,  they  seem  disposed  to  spurn  at  the 
dictates  of  common  sense,  as  a  vulgar  kind  of  evidence,  and  must 
have  argument  for  every  thing;  hut  (mark  their  inconsistency) 
when  the  subject  of  miracles  is  under  discussion,  they  abandon 
their  former  ground,  refuse  to  believe  upon  tlie  mere  evidence  of 
consequential  reasoning,  and  cry.  Let  us  see  miracles  performed — 
let  us  have  the  sure  evidence  of  sense,  and  we  will  then  believe 
you,  and  not  before.  Let  God  establish  the  truth  of  revelation, 
by  an  immediate  communication  of  it  to  my  consciousness,  says 
Thomas  Paine,  and  I  will  be  a  christian;  but  this  is  the  only  pos- 
sible way  I  can  be  convinced:  the  plainest  deductions  of  reason- 
ing will  avail  nothing,  however  obvious  and  incontrovertable:  and 
nothing  short  of  immediate  inspiration  to  my  own  soul,  shall  ever 
overcome  my  infidelity.  And  yet  this  is  the  gentleman  who  came 
forward  in  such  a  pompous  manner,  and  called  his  feeble,  though 
angry  and  declamatory  productions.  The  Jlge  of  Reason!  But  with 
all  his  affected  fondness  for  reason,  he  holds  the  evidence  of  re- 
velation to  be  so  vastly  superior,  that  no  other  kind  of  evidence 
can  deserve  any  more  regard  than  mere  hearsay. 

Now  if  no  other  evidence  is  to  be  regarded  in  the  case,  but  im- 
mediate revelation  alone,  it  evidently  follows  that  if  the  utmost 
force  of  evidence  were  given,  that  reasoning  was  ever  able  to  con- 
vey, it  ought  still  to  be  rejected.  Thus  is  reason  discarded,  in  our 
age  of  reason,  and  declared  to  be  utterly  beneath  the  attention  of 
mankind.  "  And  consequently,  they  are  not  obliged  to  believe  it." 


SECTION  VL 

Jlie  connexion  of  those  three  sources  of  evidence,  and  their  depen- 
dance  upon  each  other. 

Among  the  various  mistakes  and  inconsistencies  of  mankind, 
perhaps  none  is  of  more  serious  tendency,  than  the  practice  of 
separating  and  tearing  in  sunder  what  God  has  joined  together. 
If  common  sense  and  reason,  and  revelation,  are  really  a  three- 
fold method  whereby  truth  is  communicated  to  the  human  under- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  67 

standing,  they  all  tend  to  the  same  end;  and  for  a  man  to  neglect 
and  despise  one,  under  pretence  of  exalting  another,  is  like  a  per- 
son neglecting  the  use  of  his  eyes,  in  order  to  devote  more  time  to 
the  faculty  of  hearing:  or  like  one  who  despises  the  insignificant 
sense  of  smelling,  under  pretence  of  improving  his  taste. 

We  will  suppose  half  a  dozen  men  surround  a  table  together, 
to  partake  of  the  blessings  of  providence  for  the  refreshment  and 
support  of  their  nature;  immediately  they  begin  tp  dispute  about 
the  most  proper  method  of  eating,  one  contending  that  the  use  of 
a  man's  eyes,  is  most  essentially  necessary  at  table,  to  perceive  the 
food  before  him,  and  to  distinguish  one  part  from  another;  a  se- 
cond observes,  that  a  person's  hands  are  most  essential,  without 
which  his  eyes  can  be  of  no  service;  a  third  insists  that  hands  and 
eyes  together  might  as  well  be  neglected,  and  that  eating  depends 
chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  upon  the  proper  use  of  a  man's  moutlu 

While  they  are  employed  in  this  ridiculous  contention,  their 
companions,  smiling  at  the  metaphysical  controversy,  begin  very 
deliberately  to  use  Iheireyes,  hands  and  mouth  in  the  proper  place, 
and  thereby  receive  a  suiiieient  supply,  before  the  disputants  haye 
well  adjusted  tlie  outlines  of  their  mighty  argument. 

In  this  manner  many  infidels  have  warmly  contended  that  rea- 
son is  onr  only  guide  to  truth  and  happiness;  some  christians  have 
been  disposed  to  conclude,  with  equal  confidence,  that  revelation 
is  our  only  guide:  while  both  together  have  agreed  to  reject,  or  to 
devote  but  little  attention,  to  the  original  dictates  of  those  facul- 
ties which  enable  us  immediately  to  discover  all  the  first  princi- 
ples of  truth,  and  without  which  we  could  neither  reason  nor  re- 
«eive  any  evidence  of  revelation. 

AVhile  those  persons  appear  to  rest  satisfied,  on  both  sides, 
eaeh  one  believing  with  great  assurance  that  he  is  in  the  right 
and  that  his  antagonist  is  a  fanatic  or  a  heretic,  it  may  probably 
be  worth  while  to  enquire  if  they  be  not  both  in  the  wrong,  and 
whether  they  will  ever  be  in  the  right  till  they  consent  to  lay  by 
the  dispute,  and  to  meet  each  other  on  the  harmonious  medium 
where  mercy  and  truth  have  met  tog-ether,  and  where  reason  and 
revelation  have  kissed  each  other.  I  am  resolved,  says  one, 
that  "  Righteous  and  immortal  reason"*  shall  be  my  only 
guide,  without  any  of  your  dreams  and  ghostly  revelations.  1  am 
equally  bound,  says  another,  to  follow  the  holy  scriptures,  as  ex- 
plained by  the  infallible  church,  without  bringing  its  mysteries  to 
«  The  profane  eye  of  human  reason."! 

*  Palmer,  f  The  Popish  doctor  of  Hexham, 


68  AN  ESSAY  ON  THEi 

And  I  am  equally  resolved,  says  a  third,  to  examine  whether 
the  three  sources  of  evidence  above  explained,  be  not  so  united  that 
they  must  stand  or  fall  together,  and  whether  the  opposite  parties 
who  attempt  to  separate  them,  be  not  at  open  or  secret  war,  both 
with  reason  and  revelation.  I  am  aware  that  this  cannot  be  done, 
w  ithout  my  being  stigmatized,  by  the  one  party,  as  a  mongrel 
kind  of  deist,  and  by  the  other,  as  a  da,ngerous  enemy  to  "  Rights 
eous  and  imm^i'tal  reason;"  but  when  a  person  is  reduced  to  the 
dilemma  of  either  sacrificing  truth  to  the  favour  of  parties,  or  sa- 
crificing tlieir  favour  to  the  promotion  of  truth,  law  and  gospel, 
reason,  conscience  and  candour,  all  point  out  the  path  in  w  hich  he 
should  walk,  and  unanimously  decide,  that  fFe  ought  to  obey  God 
rather  than  man. 

It  has  already  been  evinced,  that  reason  so  depends  on  the  dic- 
tates of  common  sense,  or  in  other  words,  upon  self-evident  truths, 
that  is  impossible  for  it  to  exist  without  them:  a  few  reflections 
may  now  convince  us,  that  revelation  depends  no  less  upon  lirst 
principles,  than  reasoning  itself. 

To  exhibit  this  matter  in  the  clearest  point  of  view,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  lay  down  three  or  four  such  principles,  and  appeal  to 
the  reader's  understanding,  whether  revelation  could  aftord  any 
evidence  of  truth  without  them. 

1st.  It  is  impossible  for  God  to  be  deceived,  or  to  deceive  others. 

2d.  The  scriptures  of  the  old  and  new  Testament  have  a  real  and 
true  meaning. 

3d.  The  revealed  will  of  God  consists  in  the  doctrines  which  con- 
stitute the  true  meaning  of  scriptures,  and  not  merely  in  the  exter- 
nal letter,  or  any  false  construction  of  it. 

4-th.  It  is  possible  for  the  human  mind,  as  it  respects  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  Christianity,  to  distingiiish  the  true  meaning  of 
■ike  scriptures,  from  all  false  interpretations  of  them,  ivhen  its  fa- 
culties are  rightly  exercised  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

These  principles  are  self-evident,  and  to  deny  them,  or  any  one 
of  them,  will  be  to  assail  the  very  pillars  of  revelation. 

As  to  the  hrst  one  it  is  the  chief  corner  stone  of  reason  as  well  as 
revelation:  for  if  God  was  a  deceiver,  he  could  stamp  a  lie  upon 
our  original  constitution,  and  give  us  deceitful  faculties,  as  well 
us  a  deceitful  revelation.  A  God  that  made  every  thing,  knows  the 
natureof  every  thing  that  he  has  made,  and  cannot  possibly  be 
deceived.  Men  deceive  one  another,  in  order  to  gain  something 
from  one  another:  but  a  God  that  is  independently  happy  in  himself 
call  gaia  nothing  from  others  by  deceiving  them.    That  lying 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  69 

and  deceit  tend  to  the  injury  of  God's  creatures  is  self-evident; 
and  to  sAy  goodness  can  designedly  injure  others  is  a  contradic- 
tion. No  God  but  a  kicked  one  can  ever  be  deceitful.  The  na- 
ture of  God  is  exhibited  in  the  creation,  and  we  need  nothing 
more  than  to  nndcrstand  that  nature,  to  perceive  M'ith  immediate 
conviction,  that  the  Being  possessed  of  it  can  do  no  wrong,  and  it 
is  impossible  fw  God  to  lie. 

Attentive  reflection  may  enable  us  to  perceive  this  truth  with 
more  clearness  and  conviction;  it  may  be  illustrated  or  set  more 
fully  before  the  mind  by  arguments  or  explanations;  but  it  shines 
with  irresistible  splendour  from  the  nature  of  God,  and  every  ar- 
gument we  use,  and  every  truth  we  believe,  takes  it  for  granted, 
because  they  take  for  granted  the  veracity  of  those  faculties  which 
God  has  given  us,  and  by  which  alone  we  reason  or  judge  of  any 
subject  in  the  world.  The  more  clearly  we  understand  the  na- 
ture of  God,  the  more  clearly  we  perceive  this  axiom;  but  though 
it  may  be  illustrated,  or  set  more  fully  before  the  mind,  by  show- 
ing its  relation  to  other  obvious  truths,  yet  it  is  not  supported  by 
any  other  argument,  but  is  itself  essential  to  the  support  of 
all. 

Nothing  can  be  the  cause  of  itself.  Every  thing  that  begins 
to  exist,  must  have  a  cause,  adequate  to  produce  the  effect.  All 
signs  of  power,  intelligence  and  goodness  that  appear  in  the  eftect 
result  from  those  attributes  which  exist  essentially  in  the  cause. 
The  signs  of  those  attributes  are  manifest  in  the  structure  of  the 
universe.  The  great  and  good  Being  who  made  this  universe, 
must  know  perfectly  the  nature,  properties  and  relations  of  all 
things  he  has  made.  Being  infinitely  happy  in  himself,  he  need- 
eth  nothing  that  he  has  made.  He  gave  life  to  creatures,  and 
made  them  capable  of  happiness,  not  for  his  own  sake,  but  for 
theirs. 

That  conduct  which  tends  to  general  happiness  is  right.  Gt>d 
knows  the  nature  of  moral  evil,  and  knows  that  it  leads  to  misery. 
God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man. 

These  principles  stand  closely  related,  and  perhaps  one  may 
be  inferred  from  another;  but  each  one  alone,  when  rightly  con- 
ceived, has  evidence  in  itself  that  must  carry  conviction  to  every 
sound  and  candid  mind. 

The  second  m?i\im,  that  the  scriptures  have  a  true  meaning,  is 

alsa  self  evident.     It  is  impossible  for  it  to  be  proved,  or  made 

jnore  evident  by  any  particular  passage  of  scripture;  for  before 

that  passage  can  be  any  proof  to  my  miud,  I  mast  knovy  it's  mean- 

K 


70  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ing,  and  therefore,  I  prove  that  the  scriptures  have  a  true  mean- 
ing, by  taking  it  for  granted,  in  the  very  passage  which  I  produce 
for  my  proof. 

That  the  mind  or  will  of  God,  made  known  in  the  scriptures,  is 
contained  in  their  true  meaning,  and  not  iu  the  mere  letter  with- 
out any  meaning,  or  in  tliat  construction,  which  is  false,  I  hope 
every  person  will  acknowledge.  To  deny  it,  is  to  say  that  all  the 
contradictory  opinions  in  Christendom  are  true:  lor  a  man  may 
prove  every  one  of  them  by  some  passage  in  the  bible;  and  the  let- 
ter or  metaphor  of  the  text,  when  torn  from  the  context,  may  seem 
to  support  the  point  in  question. 

Our  fourth  maxim  must  also  stand  firm,  or  revelation  is  good 
for  nothing:  for  to  what  purpose  are  the  scriptures  given  to  men, 
ii'it  be  impossible  for  the'm  to  understand  their  true  meaning,  or 
to  distinguish  them   from  falsehood.' 

Here  the  old  atheistic  objec(iou  again  returns  upon  us;  it  is 
possible  for  us  to  mistake  the  meaning  of  scripture,  and  by  what 
iititerion  shall  we  determine  when  our  views  of  it  are  correct, 
and  when  they  are  not?  The  same  has  been  said,  and  may  be 
said,  of  reason,  sense,  consciousness,  and  every  kind  of  evidence 
that  has  ever  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive. 

The  proper  and  the  only  answer  that  can  be  given  to  this  ob- 
jection, Mhether  urged  against  revelation  or  reason,  is,  that  the 
criterion  or  method  by  which  we  distinguish  truth  from  false- 
hood, is  the  sincere  and  regular  exercise  of  those  faculties  and 
powers  of  mind  which  God  has  graciously  aftbrded  us;  by  such  an 
exercise  of  our  intellectual  j^owers,  we  shall  know  the  truth  in  all 
essential  4iiatters,  because  God  is  no  deceiver,  but  is  a  God  of 
truth,  without  iniquity,  just  and  right  is  he;  and  as  to  trivial 
mistakes,  into  which  we  may  fall  through  the  feebleness  of  our 
faculties,  they  will  never  essentially  harm  us  if  we  be  followers 
of  that  which  is  good. 

I  am  aware  that  such  an  answer  as  this  is  far  from  being  satis- 
factory to  the  mind  of  his  holiness  at  Rome,  because  it  seems  to 
undermine  the  sanctified  prerogatives  of  St.  Peter's  chair.  This 
blind  heretic,  would  he  say,  imagines  that  the  true  meaning  of 
scripture  is  to  be  sought  out  by  his  carnal  reason;  but  he  ought 
to  know  that  unless  he  speedily  and  humbly  yield  up  "  the  pro- 
fane eye  of  human  reason,"  to  the  infallible  instructions  of  the 
Mother  church,  it  will  be  necessary  to  subdue  his  obstinacy  by  the 
force  of  the  h(dy  inquisition.  But  tell  me,  gentle  reader  how 
does  the  pope,  iu  conjunction  wit  h  his  conclave  distinguish  truth  from 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  n 

falsehood,  and  what  is  their  criterion?  Why,  to  be  sure,  the  criterion 
of  infallibility.  But  is  their  infallibility  pi'oved  by  the  testimony 
of  revelation?  If  not,  it  must  be  founded  upon  that  carnal  reason, 
which  supports  the  delusions  of  infidels  and  heretics;  and  if  so, 
does  it  not  equally  prove  them  to  be  infidels  and  heretics?  If 
they  learned  from  proof  of  scripture  that  they  are  iuAillible, 
by  what  criterion  do  tliey  ascertain  that  they  rightly  understand 
that  scripture?  by  their  infallibility  also?  Then  it  seems  they 
prove  themselves  to  be  infallible  by  taking  for  granted  that  they 
are  so,  independent  of  that  proof;  and  besides,  if  we  are  sure  to  err 
in  ourjiidgments,  are  we  not  as  likely  to  err  in  judging  of  the  proof 
of  their  infiiUibility,  as  in  any  tiling  else?  And  suppose  we  take 
for  granted  that  they  are  infallible,  because  they  are  pleased, 
very  gravely  to  tell  us  so;  how  will  this  enable  u^  to  avoid  mistakes 
any  better  than  we  can  without  them?  for  supposing  their  instruc- 
tions to  be  infallibly  true,  as  we  believe  the  scriptures  to  be,  are 
we  not  as  likely  to  misunderstand  their  meaning,  as  the  meaning 
of  our  saviour  and  his  apostles?  Were  not  all  the  inspired  writers 
infallible  teachers?  they  dare  not  deny  it.  Well,  if  Christ  and 
his  apostles  were  infallible  teachers,  and  yet  poor  heretics  may 
misunderstand  them,  they  may  equally  misunderstand  the  deci- 
sions of  theHolyMother,notvvithstaudingher  priestly  infallibility. 
I  rejoice  that  1  am  not  in  the  power  of  the  holy  inquisitors,  for  if 
I  were,  their  act  of  faith  would  consign  my  poor  body  to  the  tor- 
ments of  the  inquisition,  and  my  soul  would  be  sentenced  to  de- 
part, far  beyond  the  regions  of  purgatory,  to  the  dreadful  "  hell  of 
the  reprobates." 

I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  upon  this  melancholy  theme;  but  who  can 
look  back  at  the  dark  ages  of  persecuting  bigotry  without  uttering 
a  sigh  of  silent  indignation,  and  dropping  a  tear  of  sympathy 
over  the  groans  of  bleeding  humanity!  Who  can  see  the  benign  reli-" 
gion  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  thus  dishonoured  by  its  professed  minis- 
ters, without  feeling  for  the  insulted  honour  of  our  gracious  mas- 
ter, and  for  the  degradation  of  human  nature!  If  any  person  wish- 
es to  be  instructed  in  the  secret  mysteries  of  priestcraft,  and  the 
almost  incredible  extent  of  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places, 
let  him  read  the  history  of  the  tenth,  eleventh,  and  tMclfth,  cen- 
turies. Were  I  to  produce  extracts  in  proof  of  all  the  abomina- 
tions of  those  times  my  book  would  svr'cll  into  volumes;  but  as  I 
shall  have  o»easion  frequently  to  refer  to  their  profound  and  cun- 
ning policy,  it  may  be  necessary,  once  for  all,  to  give  a  few  speci- 
mens of  their  religious  Irypocrisy,  wickedness  and  cruelty,  as  ex- 
kibited  ami  hauded  down  to  us  by  different  historians. 


yg  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

And  first  let  us  produce  the  accounts  of  Du  Pin,  who  himself 
helouged  to  the  Mother  church,  and  therefore  cannot  be  suspected 
of  a  design  to  misrepresent  her. 

Speaking  of  Ratheriiifi,  who  gave  an  account  of  the  tenth  cen- 
tury, he  says,  "  In  the  second  part  of  his  treatise,  Ratherius 
more  particularly  falls  upon  the  immodesty  of  the  clergy,  which 
was  at  such  a  height  in  his  time,  that  one  could  scarce  find  a  man 
jit  to  be  ordained  a  bishop,  or  any  bishop  fit  to  ordain  others. 

'^  After  this  treatise  there  are  five  letters  of  his  writing.  The 
first  is  directed  to  Martin,  bishop  ofTerrara,>>  herein  he  acquaints 
him  that  his  clergy  laid  sevei-al  crimes  to  his  charge,  particular- 
ly that  of  ordaining  several  infants  for  money." 

Speaking  of  one  of  the  popes,  he  says,  "  He  did  not  enjoy  his 
dignity  long:  fpr  that  Sergius,  whom  we  formerly  mentioned,  being 
pome  to  Rome,  seized  on  Christophilus,  put  him  in  prison,  and 
stepped  himself  into  St.  Peter's  chair.  This  man  is 'esteemed  a 
mpnster,  not  only  for  his  ambition  and  the  violent  proceedings  he 
was  guilty  of,  but  also  upon  the  account  of  his  loose  morals.  He 
had  a  bastard  by  Marosia  the  daughter  of  Theodora,  who  being 
along  time  before  highly  in  the  favour  of  Adalbert,  bore  a  great 
sway  in  Rome.  This  bastard  sou  of  his  was  afterwards  promo- 
ted to  the  popedom  by  the  intrigues  of  this  Marosia,  and  took 
upon  him  the  name  of  John  xi.  as  we  shall  show  in  the  sequel." 

Again,  a  little  after,  Ive  adds,  "  About  this  time  Peter,  arch- 
bishop of  Ravenna,  sent  frequently  to  Rome  a  deacon  of  his 
church,  called  John,  to  pay  his  due  respects  to  the  pope.  Theo- 
dora, that  impudent  whore,  having  seen  him  fell  desperately  in 
love  with  him,  and  prevailed  upon  him  to  maintain  a  shameful 
familiarity  with  her.  While  they  lived  thus  lustfully  together, 
the  bishop  of  Bolognia,  dying,  this  John  was  chose  in  his  place. 
But  before  he  was  consecrated,  the  bishop  of  Ravenna  dies  also, 
and  Theodora  prevails  upon  John  to  quit  the  bishoprick  of  Bo- 
lognia, and  to  accept  of  this  archbishoprick.  He  thereupon  re- 
turns back  to  Rome,  and  w  as  ordained  archbishop  of  Ravenna* 
Within  a  while  after,  the  pope,  (namely  Landon)  who  had  ordain- 
ed him,  dies;  God  calling  him  to  give  an  account  of  his  upjust  pro- 
ceedings in  ordaining  John.  Theodora  upon  this,  that  she  might 
not  be  far  from  her  lover,  made  him  again  to  relinquish  the  arch- 
bishoprick of  Ravenna,  and  to  seize  upon  St.  Peter's  chair."  see 
a  "  New  Ecclesiastical  history,"  vol.  8.  London  edition,  page  7, 
22.  by  Du  Pin,  doctor  of  the  Sorbon, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  73 

Thus,  if  we  credit  this  learned  doctor,  who  was  a  person  of 
high  authority  in  the  Romish  communion,  the  bishops,  archbi- 
shops and  popes,  who  boasted  of  their  being  vicars  of  Christ  upon 
earth  and  of  their  being  holy  and  infallible,  were  really  governed 
themselves  by  such  as  this  author  justly  calls  "  impudent 
whores." 

Let  us  now  recur  to  another  authority.  In  the  Biographical 
and  Martyrologieal  dictionary,  we  find  the  following  account, 
among  many  others  of  the  same  description: 

"  Another  Auto  de  Fe  is  thus  described  by  the  reverend  doc- 
tor Gedde,  '  At  the  place  of  execution  (here  are  so  many  stakes 
set  as  there  are  prisoners  to  be  burned,  a  large  quantity  of  dry 
furze  being  set  aboui  them. 

'  The  stakes  of  the  protestants,  or,  as  the  inquisitors  call  them 
the  professed,  are  about  four  yards  high,  and  have  each  a  small 
board,  whereon  the  prisoners  are  seated  within  half  a  yard  of  the 
top.  The  professed  tlieu  go  up  a  ladder  between  two  priests, 
who  attend  them  the  whole  day  of  execution.  When  they  come 
even  with  the  forementioned  board,  they  turn  about  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  priests  spend  near  a  quarter  of  an  hour  in  exhorting 
them  to  be  reconciled  to  the  see  of  Rome.  On  their  refusing,  the 
priests  come  down,  and  the  executioner  ascending,  turns  the  pro- 
fessed from  ott'  the  ladder  upon  the  seat,  chains  their  bodies  close 
to  the  stakes,  and  leaves  them. 

'  The  priests  then  go  Op  a  second  time  to  renew  their  exhorta- 
tions, and  if  they  find  them  inert'ectual,  usually  tell  them  at  par- 
ting, '  That  tliey  leave  them  to  the  devil,  who  is  standing  at  their 
elbow  ready  to  receive  their  souls,  and  carry  them  with  him  into 
the  flames  of  hell-Sre,  as  soon  as  they  are  out  of  their  bodies.' 

'  A  general  shout  is  then  raised,  and  when  the  priests  get  off  the 
ladder,  the  universal  cry  is,  '  Let  the  dogs  beards  be  made;' 
(which  implies,  singe  their  beards)  this  is  accordingly  performed 
by  means  of  flaming  furzes  thrust  against  their  faces  with  long 
poles. 

'  This  barbarity  is  repeated  till  their  faces  are  burnt,  and  is 
accompanied  with  loud  acclamatiuns.  Fire  is  then  set  to  the  fur- 
zes, and  the  criminals  are  consumed.' 

"  Numerous  are  the  martyrs  who  have  borne  these  rigours  with 
the  most  exemplary  fortitude:  and  we  hope  that  every  protestant, 
whose  fate  may  expose  him  to  the  merciless  tyranny  of  papists, 
will   act  consistent  with  the  duty  of  a  christian,  whcu  they  cojisi- 


y*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

der  the  great  rewards  that  await  them."    Biog.  and  Mart.  Dic- 
tionary, page  292.     Another  description  is  as  follows. 
"  First  time  of  torturing." 

«  On  refusing  to  comply  with  the  iniquitous  demands  of  the  in- 
quisitors, by  confessing  all  the  crimes  they  thought  fit  to  charge 
Jiini  with,  he  was  immediately  conveyed  to  the  torture  room, 
where  no  light  appeared  but  what  two  candles  gave.  That  the 
cries  of  the  sufferers  might  not  be  heard  by  the  other  prisoners, 
tliis  room  is  lined  by  a  kind  of  quilting,  which  covers  all  the  cre- 
vices and  deadens  the  sound. 

"  Great  was  the  prisoner's  horror  on  entering  this  infernal  place, 
vhen  suddenly  he  was  surrounded  by  six  wretches,  who,  after 
preparing  the  tortures,  stripped  him  naked  to  his  drawers.  He 
was  then  laid  upon  his  back  upon  a  kind  of  stand,  elevated  a  few 
feet  from  the  floor. 

"  They  began  the  operation  by  putting  an  iron  collar  round  his 
neck,  and  a  ring  to  each  foot,  which  fastened  him  to  the  stand. 
His  limbs  being  thus  stretched  out,  they  wound  two  ropes  round 
each  arm,  and  two  round  each  thigh;  which  ropes  being  passed 
ander  the  scaffold,  through  holes  made  for  that  purpose,  were  all 
drawn  tight  at  the  same  instant  of  time,  by  four  of  the  men,  on 
■a  given  signal. 

"  It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  the  pains  which  immediately  suc- 
ceeded were  intolerable;  the  ropes  which  were  of  a  small  size, 
eut  through  the  prisoner's  flesh  to  the  bone,  making  the  blood  gush 
out  at  eight  different  places  thus  bound  at  a  time.  As  the  prison- 
er persisted  in  not  making  any  confession  of  what  the  inquisitor 
required,  the  ropes  were  drawn  in  this  manner  four  times  succes- 
sively. 

«  It  is  to  be  observed  that  a  physician  and  surgeon  attended, 
and  often  felt  his  temples,  in  order  to  judge  of  the  danger  he  might 
he  in;  by  which  means  his  tortures  were  for  a  small  space  suspend- 
ed, that  he  might  have  sufficient  opportunity  of  recovering  his 
spirits,  to  sustain  each  ensuing  torture. 

"  In  all  this  extremity  of  anguish,  while  the  tender  frame  is 
fearing,  as  it  were,  in  pieces,  while  at  every  pore  it  feels  the 
sharpest  pangs  of  death,  and  tlie  agonizing  soul  is  just  ready  to 
hurst  forth,  and  quit  its  wretched  mansion,  the  ministers  of  the 
inquisition  have  the  obduracy  of  heart  to  look  on  without  emotion, 
and  calmly  to  advise  the  poor  distracted  creature,  to  confess  his 
imputed  guilt,  in  doing  which  they  tell  bim  he  may  obtain  a  free 
pardon,  and  receive  absolution. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  7e 

«  Females  who  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  inquisitors,  have  not 
the  least  favour  shown  them  on  account  of  the  softness  of  their 
sex,  but  are  tortured  with  as  much  severity  as  the  male  prisoners, 
with  the  additional  mortification  of  havin,!; 
dacencies  added  to  the  most 
Dictionary,  page  293,  294. 

Another  account  related  by  Du  Pin,  concerning  pope  John  the 
twelfth,  is  worthy  of  particular  observation.  "  This  man,"  says 
he,  "was  so  far  from  having  any  of  those  qualities  requisite  for  so 
great  a  dignity,  that  he  was  a  monster  in  debauchery  and  irregu- 
larity. That  John  was  not  one  of  those,  who  being  covered  with 
sheep's  clothing,  are  inwardly  ravenous  wolves;  but  that  he  com- 
mitted publicly  and  in  the  eye  of  the  world,  diabolical  actions, 
without  putting  himself  to  the  trouble  of  concealing  them. — Tliat 
he  had  abused  the  widow  of  Ranier,  Stephania  his  father's  con- 
cubine, the  widow  Ann  and  her  neice,  and  that  he  had  made  his 
court  the  very  sink  of  debauchery.  The  clergy  and  laity  then  pre- 
sent [at  Rome]  cry'd  out  that  they  had  seen  him  drink  a  health 
to  the  devil,  and  swear  by  the  heathen  Gods  in  his  play  at  hazards.^* 
J\rew  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  8,  page  10, 11. 

Such  are  the  men  to  whom  the  laity  are  required  to  yield  a  tame 
and  a  blind  submission.  They  must  not  presume  to  use  their  owm 
judgment,  because  it  is  possible  for  them  to  err;  and  when  they 
are  informed  that  the  popish  priesthood  possess  infallibility,  a 
distinguishing  prerogative  of  Almighty  God,  they  must  receive  the 
holy  tidings,  like  dutiful  children,  m  ithout  having  the  assurance 
to  ask  for  any  proof  of  this  blasphemous  claim.  Human  reason 
is  very  weak  and  deceitful,  says  the  pope;  therefore,  lay  it  aside, 
and  humbly  receive  the  sure  instructions  of  the  church.  The  sen- 
ses are  very  fallacious,  says  the  sceptic,  therefore,  tamely  receive 
what  "philosophy  teaches,"  without  presuming  to  call  it  in  qnes- 
tion.  These  gentlemen  appear  to  agree  remarkably  m  ell  in  their 
views;  but  I  hope  the  world  will  learn  that  there  is  less  danger  of 
error  in  using  the  faculties  of  judging  which  God  has  given  them, 
than  4n  believing  things  merely  because  priests  and  philosophei-s 
are  pleased  to  say  they  are  true. 

Let  us  next  consider  whether  the  evidence  of  reasoning  be  also 
inseparable  from  that  of  revelation. 

Reasoning  is  necessary  to  enable  us  to  perceive  the  evidence 
that  our  scriptures  come  from  God,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  ca.se 
of  miracles,  and  might  be  shown  in  other  branches  of  the  subject. 
And  will  any  one  sa^  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  us  to  discover 


ye  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

this  evidence,  and  that  we  oiiglit  to  take  for  granted  without  any 
proof,  that  the  bible  is  of  God?  If  so,  Mahometans  ought  to  take 
the  Alcoran  for  granted:  and  we  ought  all  to  take  for  granted 
that  the  churcli  of  Rome  is  infallible:  for  their  infallibility  is  built 
upon  this  very  principle.  They  know  it  is  impossible  for  them 
to  give  us  any  ;?roo/*  of  it,  and  therefore  they  think  our  carnal  reason 
ought  to  take  it  for  granted  Avittsout  proof.  If  we  wish  any  man 
in  the  world  to  believe  the  scriptures  without  proper  evidence^ 
we  of  consequence  sanction  the  grand  principle  of  popery,  and 
virtually  declare  that  it  is  a  righteous  thing  for  them  thus  to 
impose  upon  their  unsuspecting  followers. 

A  point  of  doctri'iie  proved  by  the  scriptures,  before  the  truth 
and  divinity  of  those  scriptures  are  ascertained,  is  exactly  like  a 
deduction  of  reasoning,  built  upon  an  hypothesis.  As  all  rational 
belief  in  the  conclusion,  is  proportioned  to  the  degree  of  evidence 
we  perceive  in  the  premises;  so  our  confidence  in  any  point  of 
doctrine  proved  by  the  testimony  of  revelation,  is  and  ought  to  be 
in  exact  proportion  to  the  evidence  we  perceive  that  the  revelation 
is  true,  by  which  the  doctrine  in  question  is  established:  and  if  we 
encourage  people  to  receive  Christianity  blindfold,  without  labour- 
ing to  discover  the  evidence  of  its  truth,  we  encourage  the  very 
principle  which  led  philosophers  to  take  certain  hypotheses  for 
granted,  in  the  same  blindfold  manner,  and  to  build  conclusions 
upon  them,  till  they  proved  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth  have 
no  real  existence. 

I  write  thus,  not  from  a  suspicion  that  revelation  is  supported  by 
slender  evidence,  but  from  a  conviction  that  the  evidence  is  abun* 
dant:  I  wish  all  men  in  the  world  to  examine  it,  the  more  attentive- 
ly the  better;  and  when  I  see  christians  manifest  a  disposition,  by 
indirect  hints  or  otherwise,  to  discourage  the  diligent  exercise  of 
reason,  and  seem  to  think  it  unsafe  to  search  the  grounds  of 
Christianity  too  closely,  I  cjvnnot  help  thinking  they  secretly  sus- 
pect our  religion  stands  upon  rather  a  sandy  basis,  and  that  it 
cannot  well  bear  a  close  and  impartial  examination. 

Perhaps  in  this  1  am  too  censorious:  perhaps  they  perceive  the 
evidence  of  revelation  more  clearly  than  myself;  but  knowing  the 
blindness  of  the  human  heart,  they  are  afraid  to  encourage  the 
use  of  reason  among  the  people  in  general,  lest  they  should  wildly 
abuse  their  reason,  and  run  into  infidelity.  Alas,  my  brother!  this  is 
granting  deists  the  very  thing  which  they  contend  for:  this  is  gran-* 
ting  that  the  deists  of  our  country  have  been  led  into  infidelity,  by 
rellcction,or  because  they  would  think  and  examine  for  themselves, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  77 

and  that  the  cause  why  others  have  not  followed  their  example,  is, 
that  priests  and  parents  have  prevailed  with  them  to  guard  against 
the  danger  of  using  their  reason. 

I  am  persuaded,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  hest  method  to  keep 
infidelity  from  becoming  general  in  any  country,  is,  to  train  the 
inhabitants  from  their  youth,  to  close  thinking  and  reasoning.  If 
we  endeavour  to  establish  in  them  the  habit  of  taking  things  for 
granted  without  evidence,  and  without  examination,  we  may  in- 
deed preserve  them  for  a  while  in  a  loose  profession  of  Christiani- 
ty; but  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  wickedness  and  blindness 
of  man's  heart  are  not  to  be  cured  by  the  neglect  of  his  rational 
faculties,  but  by  the  proper  exercise  of  them,  under  the  influences 
of  divine  grace.  May  a  man  resist  the  spirit  in  a  certain  method 
of  using  his  reason.^  so  he  may  in  the  neglect  of  it.  Is  he  some- 
times led  astray  through  too  much  attention  and  thinking?  and 
how  much  oftener  through  the  want  of  it.^  Are  some  persons  led 
into  infidelity,  who  are  of  a  reasonable  turn  of  mind?  and  how  ma- 
ny more  who  never  reasoned  for  an  hour  since  they  were  born?  how 
many  drunken  infidels  are  cursing  and  blaspheming  about  tlie 
streets  every  day,  who  are  almost  as  ignorant  of  the  nature  and 
grounds  of  Christianity  as  a  savage?  And  were  these  witty  and 
jovial  deists  led  to  disbelieve  and  despise  the  religion  of  their 
country,  by  being  too  much  indulged  in  the  use  of  their  reason  ? 
No:  God  knows  if  there  was  no  other  degree  of  reason  among  men, 
than  the  quantum  of  it  possessed  and  exercised  by  such  boasted 
free-thinkers,  we  should  have  but  a  very  scanty  pittance  of  it 
under  the  sun. 

Let  any  man  lift  up  his  eyes,  and  take  a  survey  of  popish  coun- 
tries, where  men  for  centuries  have  been  trained  up  to  im- 
plicit faith,  and  where  "  ignorance  was  the  mother  of  devotion,'** 
and  "  reason  the  greatest  enemy  tofaithy  What  fruits  have  been 
produced  by  those  maxims?  They  produced  a  servile  and  barba- 
rous superstition,  under  the  name  of  Christianity,  far  worse  than 
paganism,*  and  afterwards  they  produced  a  swarm  of  infidels  or 
open  atheists. 


*  Dr.  Campbell,  speaking  of  Spain,  calls  it  «  a  country  sunk 
in  the  most  obdurate  superstition  that  ever  disgraced  human 
nature."  He  adds,  in  a  note,  "  This  perhaps  will  appear  to  some 
to  be  too  severe  a  censure  on  a  country  called  Christian,  and 
may  be  thought  to  recoil  on  Christianity.  I  do  not  think  it  fairly 
capable  of  such  a  construction.  That  the  corruption  of  the  best 


78  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Is  it  not  notorious,  that  reason  has  been  subdued,  and  implicit 
faith  instilled  into  the  people  by  the  priests  of  Rome,  more  than 
by  any  other  set  of  men  upon  earth?  And  is  it  not  equally  noto- 
rious that  greater  bodies  of  deists  now  exist  in  popish  countries, 
than  in  any  other  countries  in  Christendom?  Why  then  do  we  vain- 
ly imagine  that  we  bhall  obstruct  the  progress  of  infidelity  by 
going  back  to  the  popish  standard,  and  by  persuading  God's  ra- 
tional creatures  that  it  is  dangerous  for  them  to  use  their  reason? 
If  we  could  persuade  them  to  guard  against  pride,  prejudice,  hy- 
potheses, and  sophistry,  and  prevail  with  men  in  general  to  exer- 
cise their  reason  with  all  possible  attention  and  regularity,  I  think 
it  would  appear,  and  the  discovery  would  become  more  general 
too,  that  popery  and  infidelity  are  really  supported  by  the  same 
weapons,  and  that  they  are  both  as  much  under  the  necessity  of 
sneaking  into  dark  corners  to  avoid  the  light  of  reason,  as  a  biid 
of  night  to  cower  down  into  some  deep  grove,  or  hidden  corner  of 
the  world,  to  avoid  the  illuminating  beams  of  the  sun  as  he  shines 
with  brilliant  grandeur  through  the  heavens. 

But  man's  reason,  we  are  told,  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  has  be- 
come so  corrupt  that  it  is  a  very  deceitful  guide. 

Does  this  mean  that  our  reasoning  faculties,  when  used  in  the 
best  manner  in  our  power,  naturally  lead  us  into  delusion?  or  that 
they  are  as  likely  to  lead  us  into  falsehood  as  truth?  If  so,  I  must 
dissent  from  the  conclusion,  and  maintain  that  true  reasoning  will 
no  more  support  falsehood  than  it  did  before  the  fall  of  iVdam. 

If  man  is  greatly  corrupted,  and  prone  to  run  into  error  and 
wickedness,  does  it  hence  follow  that  his  eyes  and  ears  and  other 


things  produces  the  worst  has  grown  into  a  proverb:  and,  on  the 
most  imjKirtial  inquiry,  I  do  not  imagine  it  will  be  found  tliat 
any  species  of  idolatry  ever  tended  so  directly  to  extirpate  hu- 
manity, gratitude,  natural  aft'ection,  equity,  mutual  confidence, 
good  foith,  and  every  amiable  and  gener  «us  principle  from  the 
human  breast,  as  that  gross  perversion  of  the  christian  religion 
which  is  established  in  Spain.  It  will  not  surely  be  ailirmed, 
that  our  Saviour  intended  any  censure  on  the  Mosaic  institution, 
or  genuine  Judaism,  when  he  said.  Wo  unto  you.  Scribes  and  Plia- 
risees,  hypocrites;  for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  prose- 
lyte, and  when  he  is  made,  ye  make  him  twofold  more  the  child  of 
hell  than  yourselves.  Yet  the  words  plainly  imply,  that  even  pa- 
gans, by  being  converted  to  {he  Judaism,  that  was  then  professed, 
were  >»rt//e  children  of  hell,  and  consequently  corrupted,  instead 
of  being  reformed."  See  Campbell's  dissertation  on  miracles, 
third  edition,  page  237. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  -TO 

natural  faculties   have  become  so  corrupt  that  they  are  no  longer 
to  be  trusted?  It  does  not. 

Was  Adam's  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  so  destroyed,  by 
his  apostacy,  that  he  could  no  longer  distinguish  truth  from  false- 
hood, or  right  from  wrong?  If  so,  wherein  did  he  difl'er  from  a 
horse,  or  any  other  beast  of  the  field?  If  he  could  no  longer  distin- 
guish between  right  and  wrong,  it  was  surely  impossible  for  him 
to  have  any  conviction  of  the  guilt  or  turpitude  of  his  past  actions, 
or  any  sense  of  obligation  to  his  maker  for  the  future.  For  how 
can  a  creature  know  he  has  done  wrong,  or  that  he  ought  to  do 
right,  after  he  has  lost  all  capacity  to  distinguish  between  tlicm? 

Does  God  require  of  man  to  follow  the  dictates  of  his  reason 
and  conscience,  or  to  depart  from  them?  If  to  depart  from  them, 
it  follows  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God  for  a  man  to  be 
conscientious;  and  to  act  according  to  his  requirements,  we  must 
all  act  as  unreasonably  as  possible.  If  he  requires  us  to  follow 
them,  then  to  say  they  are  deceitful,  is  to  say  God  enjoins  on  his 
creatures  to  follow  a  deceitful  guide. 

If  it  be  objected  that  he  has  given  the  Bible  as  our  guide,  I  an- 
swer, 1st,  thousands  are  not  in  possession  of  the  Bible;  and  2d, 
those  who  are  in  possession  of  it  cannot  understand  it  without  the 
exercise  of  their  reason,  which,  if  it  be  deceitful,  will  delude  them 
as  much  in  their  judgments  concerning  the  meaning  of  scripture, 
as  in  any  other  matters. 

If  it  be  said,  the  spirit  is  our  guide,  I  would  ask,  does  the  spirit 
excite  us  to  fellow  the  dictates  of  reason  and  conscience,  or  to  act 
in  opposition  to  them  ?  if  to  act  in  opposition  to  them,  then  we  say 
the  spirit  will  not  allow  men  to  be  conscientious,  and  that  it  influ- 
ences them  to  be  unreasonable.  But  if  it  influences  us  to  follow 
them,  then  we  cannot  charge  our  reason  and  conscience  with  be- 
ing deceitful,  without  charging  the  Holy  Spirit  with  being  equally 
so,  seeing  it  influences  us  to  follow  their  dictates. 

But  if  reason  and  conscience  never  deceive,  how  comes  it  to 
pass,says  one,  that  men  fall  into  so  many  delusions?  answer,  by  ne- 
glecting or  suppressing  those  faculties,  and  following  some  other 
guide.  Does  not  the  apostle  aftirm  that  the  m  oman,  being  deceiv- 
ed, was  in  the  transgression?  To  say  Eve  entered  into  this  delusion 
by  following  her  reason  and  conscience,  is  to  say  those  faculties 
were  originally  made  deceitful;  but  if  it  was  by  departing  from 
thein,  to  follow  another  guide,  then  rebellion  against  God  was  a 
violation  of  reason:  and  if  sin  then  consisted  in  acting  against  rea- 
son and  congciejico,  Avhy  suppose  its  nature  has  since  altered? 


$X)  AN  ESSAY  ON  TKK 

But  the  apostles,  words  are  often  quoted  to  prove  that  a  uian's 
conscience  may  lead  him  into  wickedness:  I  have  lived  in  all  good 
conscience  unto  this  day.  Does  this  mean  that  Paul  had  never,  to 
that  day,  done  any  thing  for  which  his  conscience  condemned  him? 
That  he  had  laboured  with  the  utmost  candour  and  attention  to 
know  his  duty  in  all  things,  and  had  never  in  his  life  done  any 
thing  which  he  knew  he  ought  not  to  do,  or  left  undone  any  thing 
which  he  knew  he  ought  to  do?  How  could  he  then  say  that  he 
was  before  a  blasphemer,  and  a  persecutor,  and  injurious?  i.  T'mu 
i.  13.  How  could  he  say  (ver.  15)  that  he  \va.s  the  chief  of  sin- 
ners?  Did  Paul  really  believe,  with  the  writings  of  the  prophets  in 
his  hands,  that  it  was  his  sacred  duty  to  be  a  blasphemer,  aperse- 
ffiitor,  and  injurious?  Can  a  man  be  conscious  of  leaving  undone 
that  which  he  knows  to  be  good,  and  of  doing  thatwhich  he  knows 
to  be  evil,  as  Paul  did,  and  all  the  while  have  a  good  conscience? 
Can  a  man  be  the  chief  of  sinners,  and  live  in  all  good  conscience 
throTigh  the  whole  of  it  ?  If  so,  the  chief  of  sinners  may  assure, 
himself  that  he  is  in  the  way  to  heaven,  for  the  apostle  John  saith, 
if  our  heart  condemn  us  not,  then  have  we  confidence  toward  God. 
d.  John  iii.  21. 

The  apostle's  words,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  context,  evi- 
dently signify  that  he  had  regularly  kept  the  Jewish  laAv,  by  which 
they  Mere  then  about  to  try  him:  as  to  this  law,  says  he,  for  the. 
pretended  violation  of  whicli,  you  have  bound  me  with  this  chain, 
I  have  lived  in  all  good  conscience  unto  this  day:  I  have  never  trans- 
gressed one  of  those  laws,  upon  which  you  hope  to  found  a  legal 
sentence  against  me. 

Touching  the  righteousness  of  the  {ceremonial)  law  he  was  blame- 
?ess,  because  he  had  kept  it  withthe  most  scrupulous  regidarity.  And 
when  did  Paul,  to  the  end  of  his  life,  ever  blame  himself  for  any 
violation  of  the  Jewish  or  ceremonial  law?  Never.  And  why  did 
he  not  ?  Because  in  that  respect  he  had  lived  in  all  good  conscience. 
But  did  he  never  blame  himself  for  persecuting  the  followers  of 
Jesus  Christ?  Yes,  he  reproached  himself  with  it  repeatedly,  and  it 
was  principally  on  this  ground  that  he  pronounced  himself  the 
chief  of  sinners.  And  why  ?  Because  in  this  respect  he  did  not 
live  in  all  good  conscience,  as  he  did  in  respect  to  his  keeping  the 
law  which  they  charged  him  with  having  violated.  Did  he  ever  say 
he  killed  the  disciples  of  Jesus  in  all  good  conscience}  So  far  from 
it,  that  he  represent  it  as  a  crime  so  enormous,  that  nothing  but 
the  plea  of  ignorance  could  afford  any  ground  fpr  him  to  ev^l- 
hope  for  mercy. 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  84 

'^liis  true,  he  said,  "I  verily  thought  with  myself,  that  I  ought  t« 
do  many  things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,"*  but 
he  no  where  tells  us  that  this  thought  arose  from  either  his  reason 
or  conscience;  but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  arose  from  the  most  fu- 
rious prejudice  and  malice;  "  I  compelled  them  to  blaspheme," 
says  he;  "  and  being  exceedingly  mad  against  them,  I  persecuted 
them  even  unto  strange  cities."t  If  we  are  to  conclude  a  man's 
reason  and  conscience  lead  him  astray,  because  he  departs  from 
them  to  follow  his  furious  passions,  may  we  not  as  well  conclude 
that  the  devil  is  still  following  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  lives  in 
all  good  conscience  unto  this  day  ? 

But  we  are  to  take  it  for  granted,  I  suppose,  that  whenever  a 
man  thinks  a  thing  is  rights  thatthought  arises  from  his  conscience^ 
and  whenever  he  thinks  a  thing  isirwe,  that  thought  arises  from  his 
reason.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  plain  that  all  mankind  have  regularly 
followed  their  reason  and  conscience,  and  nothing  else,  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  to  the  present  hour,  in  judging  of  what  i« 
right  and  of  w  hat  is  true. 

Did  Paul  say,  or  will  any  man  say  for  him,  that  he  sincerely 
and  candidly  used  all  the  means  in  his  power  to  know  his  duty, 
and  that  after  the  most  serious  and  dispassionate  reflection,  he 
really  felt  in  his  conscience  that  it  w  as  his  sacred  duty  to  be  ex- 
eeeding  mad  against  the  saints,  and  compel  them  to  blaspheme? 

When  a  man  calmly  and  candidly  labours  to  know  his  duty, 
and  after  consulting  his  moral  judgment,  and  striving  to  conceive 
the  matter  clearly,  has  an  immediate  conviction  that  the  right  or 
wrong  of  a  certain  thing  is  self-evident,  this  I  understand  to  be  a 
true  dictate  of  an  original  faculty;  call  it  conscience,  or  what  you 
please.  When  he  has  recourse  to  such  principles,  to  draw  con- 
clusion from  them,  and  prove  the  right  or  wrong  of  some 
other  point  of  moral  conduct,  this  I  understand  to  be  reason 
brought  into  exercise,  to  enlarge  the  knowledge  we  derive  froui 
the  first  principles  of  morality.  When  a  man  uses  his  utmost  en» 
deavours  to  prove  the  right  or  wrong  of  a  certain  matter,  and  can- 
not find  any  evidence  for  or.  against  it,  with  the  help  of  revelation 
or  otherwise,  this  I  understand  to  be  a  matter  beyond  the  reach  of 
his  faculties.  And  while  this  is  the  case,  his  doing  it  or  leaving 
it  undone  is  to  him  indifferent,  because  there  is  no  moral  evidence 
within  his  reach  either  for  or  against  it.  It  is  true,  if  there  be 
any  probable  evidence,  or  any  ground  to  presume  that  a  certain 
action  is  wrong,  a  man  ought  to  refrain  from  it;  because   where 

*  Acts.  xxvi.  9.        i  Acts,  xxvi.  ti. 


S3  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

there  is  ground  to  doubt  the  lawfulness  of  doing  a  certain  action^ 
there  can  be  no  hesitation  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  leaving  it  un- 
done: but  where  no  evidence  can  be  had  on  one  side  or  the  other, 
not  even  the  slightest  degree  of  presumptive  evidence,  the  thing 
is  perfectly  indifferent,  and  ought  so  to  be  considered  by  every 
man  till  some  proof  shall  appear  to  command  his  belief. 

Now  if  a  man  should  espouse  such  an  indifferent  matter,  as  a 
very  great  duty,  or  abhor  it  as  a  dreadful  crime,  who  will  say  he 
is  led  to  this  by  the  dictates  of  his  reason  or  conscience? 

The  Pharisees  thought  they  discharged  a  very  great  duly  in 
''  paying  tithes  of  mint,  anise,  cummin,  and  all  manner  of  herbs;" 
they  thought  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  guilty  of  a  heinous  crime 
in  plucking  ears  of  corn,  and  rubbing  them  in  their  hands,  on  the 
Sabbath  day.  Were  they  led  to  these  conclusions  by  their  con- 
science? or  by  their  passions  and  superstitious  bigotry? 

History  informs  us  that  some  of  the  heathens  believed  it  their 
duty  to  practise  debauchery,  as  an  act  of  worship  or  devotion  to 
their  gods.  Were  they  led  to  this  belief  by  following  the  dictates 
of  their  moral  judgment?  or  by  following  the  influence  of  sen- 
sual appetites?  It  is  an  easy  thing  for  a  man  to  bring  himself  to 
believe  that  which  he  strongly  wishes  to  believe.  In  doing  so,  h« 
often  does  violence  to  the  first  convictions  of  his  understanding, 
and  thereby  establishes  himself  in  opinions  directly  opposite  to 
some  of  its  clearest  dictates.  To  say  every  man's  opinions  of 
right  and  wrong  are  formed  by  following  the  evidence  of  his  rea- 
son and  conscience,  is  to  say  no  man  ever  resisted  their  dictates 
in  regulating  his  moral  opinions,  and  of  course  every  sinner  in  the 
world  has  lived  in  all  good  conscience  unto  this  day.  One  per- 
suades himself  it  is  right  to  spend  his  life  in  gambling,  which  he 
calls  an  innocent  amusement;  a  second  believes  it  right  to  oppose  all 
religion,  as  superstition  and  priestcraft;  a  third  can  see  no  harm 
in  fornication  and  adultery,  which  he  calls  living  according  to 
our  nature.  Now  if  those  persons  have  formed  their  opinions  by 
following  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  have  acted  in  conformity 
to  their  faith,  they  have  surely  lived  in  all  good  conscience  unto 
this  day.  And  if  they  followed  this  evidence  without  deviation, 
informing  their  judgment  of  right  and  m  rong;  and  then  regulated 
their  actions  according  to  their  best  judgment,  shall  we  blame 
them  for  it,  and  say  they  did  wrong?  If  so,  we  suppose  it  right 
for  men  to  resist  their  conscience  and  labour  to  subdue  its  influ- 
ence; otherwise  it  cannot  be  wrong  for  them  to  do  the  contrary. 

I  see  no  way  to  avoid  these  consequences  but  to  admit  that  meu 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  ^s 

often  form  their  opinions,  concerning  moral  subjects  as  well  as 
others,  by  departing  from  rational  and  moral  evidence,  and  follow- 
kig  the  blind  influence  of  prejudice  and  passion.  This  being  ad- 
mitted, the  consequence  is  clear,  tliat  the  absurdities  and  abomina- 
tions of  the  heathens,  afford  no  proof  of  the  deceitfulness  of  their 
reason;  hui,becoming  vain  in  their  imaginations,  their  foolish  heart 
was  darkened  hy  yielding  to  the  pernicious  influence  of  lust  and 
pride,  vanity  and  superstition. 

And  are  we  disposed  to  excuse  them  entirely,  and  to  lay  the 
whole  blame  on  those  judging  faculties,  which  God  Almightj'- 
gave  them,  and  the  exercise  of  which  he  demanded  of  them,  to 
subdue  their  passions,  and  to  regulate  their  judgments  concern- 
ing truth  and  falsehood,  right  and  wrong? 

Whence  arises  this  sentiment  which  goes  to  apologise  for  hu- 
man depravity.^*  Whence  this  inclination  to  undervalue  the  rea- 
son of  mankind,  and  represent  it  as  being  very  deceitful  and  fal- 
lacious in  its  operations?  Does  it  arise  from  the  supposition  that 
as  reason  is  shown  to  be  fluctuating  and  uncertain,  that  the  truth 
and  certainty  of  revelation  will  appear  in  an  inverse  proportion? 
Alas,  if  reason  be  a  false  guide,  it  is  as  likely  to  bear  false  m  it- 
ness  concerning  the  evidence  of  revelation,  as  any  thing  else;  for 
suppose  you  prove  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  scriptures  to  a  man, 
by  the  most  clear  and  conclusive  arguments,  how  easy  is  itfor  him 
to  reply,  "It  i^s  true,  sir,  that  you  have  proved  this  matter  by  very 
clear  arguments;  but  you  have  often  taught  me  to  consider  hu- 
man reason  as  being  so  corrupt,  that  it  is  as  likely  to  su2)port  false- 
hood as  truth;  and  how  do  I  know  but  this  is  one  of  its  deceitful 
sallies,  intended  to  impose  a  false  revelation  upon  me?"  Thus  the 
person'furnishes  a  weapon  against  himself,  and  evinces  that  eve- 
ry attempt  to  demolish  the  evidence  of  reasoa,  equally  militates 
against  that  of  revelation. 

Or,  will  it  he  said  that  Mr.  Paine  was  in  the  right,  when  he  de- 
clared that  every  man  should  have  a  new  revelation,  to  confirm 
the  old,  before  he  is  "  obliged  to  believe  it?"  If  so,  Paine  him- 
self and  every  other  deist  in  the  world,  is  entirely  excusable,  un- 
less it  can  be  made  appear  that  any  one  of  them  has  resisted  the 
light  of  a  new  revelation:  they  have  had  the  deceitful  evidence  of 
reason;  but  this  does  not  render  them  blamable  for  their  unbelief, 
because  reason  is  supposed  to  be  as  apt  to  bear  witness  to  a 
falsehood  as  to  the  truth;  therefore  an  exact  attention  to  its  dic- 
tates may  have  led  them  into  infidelitv. 


S4  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

And  this  is  the  way  it  seems,  that  we  are  to  support  the  honour 
of  revelation!  we  must  degrade  and  undervalue  the  reason  of  man- 
kind, under  the  cant  names  of  human  reason,  carnal  reason,  and 
the  likti,  and  then  to  be  sure  revelation  will  shine  forth,  and  bear 
down  all  before  it!  This  poor,  mean  stratagem,  first  invented  in  a 
popish  conclave,  is  so  far  from  supporting  Christianity,  that  it 
has  strengtliened  the  hands  of  our  enemies,  and  enabled  them  to 
make  proselytes,  by  proving  out  of  our  own  mouths,  that  a  man 
cannot  be  a  christian,  without  degrading  and  renouncing  his  ra- 
tional faculties. 

And  suffer  me  to  repeat  the  question,  if  our  rational  faciiltieg 
are  fallacious,  why  are  they  not  as  likely  to  lead  us  astray,  when 
we  use  them  to  find  out  the  true  meaning  of  scripture,  as  in  any 
thing  else?  If  it  be  said  the  use  of  a  man*s  reason  is  not  essential 
to  the  right  understanding  of  the  scriptures,  why  do  not  our  horses 
understand  them  as  well  as  ourselves?  The  apostle  tells  us  we  are 
to  compare  spiritual  things  with  spiritual,  and  it  is  a  common 
maxim  among  us,  that  scripture  is  to  be  explained  by  scripture. 
Now  what  is  this  but  proper  and  regular  reasoning?  we  compare 
one  passage  with  another,  as  our  premises,  and  from  the  compa- 
rison, we  draw  our  conclusion  concerning  the  true  meaning  of  scrip- 
ture. But  if  reason  be  deceitful,  the  whole  of  that  deceit  is  car- 
ried into  our  conception  of  the  scriptures,  whenever  we  attempt 
to  find  out  their  true  meaning.  In  vain  may  you  recur  to  the  old 
objection,  that  it  is  possible  for  us  to  be  mistaken,  and  to  take  that 
to  be  sound  reason,  which  is  altogether  sophistical;  for  the  same 
thing  may  be  urged  against  inspiration,  common  sense,  and  every 
kind  of  evidence  in  the  world.  If  we  refuse  to  trust  our  faculties,  till 
some  criterion  be  produced,  to  prove  the  abstract  impossibility  of 
our  ever  being  mistaken,  our  ease  is  perfectly  incurable,  and  we 
must  wander  into  the  regions  of  universal  scepticism,  or  retire  to 
the  bosom  of  popish  infallibility,  where  the  danger  of  our  being 
deceived  is  tenfold  more  manifest  than  it  was  before. 

It  will  be  equally  unavailing  to  say  "  we  must  lay  aside  our  un- 
certain reason,  and  depend  entirely  upon  the  light  of  the  holy  spi- 
rit;" for  if  the  spirit  is  to  give  us  an  immediate  direction  in  every 
thing,  reason  and  scripture  together  are  entirely  useless.  Why 
do  I  want  a  bible  any  more  than  my  reason,  if  1  have  an  internal 
guide  that  shows  me  on  all  occasions  what  is  right  and  true? 

The  holy  spirit  is  given  to  assist  the  faculties  of  our  nature, 
hut  not  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  using  them.  Docs  God  give 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  jgyg 

his  spirit  to  reasonable  creatures,  that  they  may  lay  aside  their 
reason?  Does  he  give  a  Bible  to  mankind,  and  then  give  his  spi- 
rit to  enable  them  to  do  \vithout  it?  Does  he  enlighten  the  eyes  of 
our  understanding,  in  order  for  us  to  lay  our  understanding  by? 
Does  he  demand  of  us  to  exercise  and  improve  our  talents,  and 
then  give  his  spirit  to  excuse  our  hiding  them  in  a  napkin?  Has 
he  created  us  with  active  powers,  that  we  should  diligently  use 
them,  and  afterwards  given  his  spirit  to  justify  our  laziness,  and 
to  make  those  powers  altogether  unnecessary?  God  is  not  the  au- 
thor of  such  contradictions.  Man  is  the  author  of  them;  and 
while  some  whimsical  enthusiasts  have  laid  aside  their  reason, 
and  almost  taken  leave  of  their  senses,  under  pretence  of  having 
a  spiritual  light  that  rendered  them  no  longer  necessary,  others 
from  the  same  frenzy  have  laid  aside  the  Bible*  on  account  of 
the  abundant  revelations  they  were  daily  conscious  of  in  their  own 
souls,  and  which  raised  them  far  above  the  want  of  reason,  or  the 
carnal  letter  of  the  scriptures. 

Leaving  those  geniuses  to  their  own  spiritual  imaginations, 
we  come  next  to  consider  the  dependance  of  reason  upon  revela- 
tion. 

As  the  progressive  exercise  of  reason  enables  us  to  carry  our 
discoveries  far  beyond  the  first  principles  of  common  sense,  and 
thus  greatly  to  enlarge  our  kno^vledge:  so  the  inestimable  gift  of 
revelation  carries  our  views  still  higher,  and  enables  us  to  make 
discoveries  which  reason  alone  could  never  make.  This  does  not 
imply  that  our  intellectual  faculties  are  ever  deceitful;  they  are 
alvTays  true  as  far  as  they  go;  but  being  naturally  feeble,  they 
cannot  soar  to  the  highest  regions  of  truth,  attainable  by  man, 
without  the  assistance  of  revelation.  In  like  manner  the  dictates 
of  common  sense  are  always  true,  as  far  as  they  go;  but  they  can- 
not bring  us  even  to  the  middle  regions  without  the  help  of  rea- 
son: and  yet  their  humble  sphere  is  so  very  important,  that  with- 
out it  we  lose  the  benefit  of  reason  and  revelation  together,  and 
drop  into  the  shades  of  universal  ignorance. 

The  great  necessity  and  advantages  of  revelation  have  been  ex- 
hibited by  many  good  men,  whose  shoes  I  am  unworthy  to  loose. 
All  that  is  necessary  on  the  present  occasion,  is  briefly  to  men- 
tion a  few  particulars,  which  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  mutual 
dependence  of  the  three  great  sources  of  evidence,  which  is  the 
design  of  the  present  section. 


See  John  Nelson's  Jouriuil> 
M 


m  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

First,  men  in  general,  have  neither  time  nor  talents  to  learn  eve- 
ry thing  needful  to  be  known,  by  the  slow  and  cautious  method  of 
reasoning,  nor  yet  to  comprehend  them  when  exhibited  by  others. 
They  must  of  necessity  devote  their  chief  attention  to  the  common 
labours  of  life,  and  though  they  are  capable  of  reasoning,  yet  they 
have  not  time  to  enter  into  it  extensively;  and  therefore  the  good- 
ness of  God  has  given  them  a  plain  revelation,  composed  of  truths 
the  most  essential  that  ever  Jiave  been  presented  to  the  human 
mind.  If  they  only  exercise  that  degree  of  reason  which  is  neces- 
sary to  discover  ihe  signs  of  divine  wisdom,  goodness  and  holiness, 
that  are  very  manifest  in  the  scriptures,  and  strive  impartially  to 
understand  them,  nothing  more  is  needful;  and  they  have  a  fund  of 
instruction  before  their  eyes,  adapted  to  every  capacity.  This 
point  has  been  exhibited  in  a  satisfactory  manner  by  Mr.  Lockej 
and  many  others. 

Secondly,  the  doctrine  of  our  immortality,  or  future  existence, 
lies  so  deep,  that  few  men  are  able  to  pei'ceive  its  evidence  by 
reasoning  alone;  and  the  most  penetrating  minds  have  found 
some  remaining  doubts,  which  nothing  but  revelation  could  re- 
move. 

Thirdly,  the  original  cause  of  man's  innate  propensities  to  evil, 
lay  hid  in  obscurity,  and  puzzled  all  serious  minds,  till  it  was  ex- 
hibited by  revelation:  reason  now  confirms  the  truth  of  it,  by  de- 
ductions from  matter  of  fact  and  common  sense;  but  that  the  first 
man  involved  his  posterity  in  this  wretched  state,  by  his  rebellion 
against  God,  would  yet  have  remained  a  secret,  had  no  revelation 
from  God  been  given  to  mankind. 

Fourthly,  the  peculiar  kindness  of  God  towards  the  children  of 
men  and  his,  deep  interest  for  their  eternal  welfare,  is  a  pure  dis- 
covery of  revelation.  AVithout  it,  we  should  be  totally  ignorant 
whether  God  would  ever  pardon  our  transgressions  or  not,  and 
equally  so,  respecting  the  method  his  wisdom  has  adopted  to 
make  that  pardon  accord  with  the  pure  and  righteous  principles 
of  his  moral  government.  But,  Jesus  is  the  light  and  the  life  of 
men;  and  this  life  and  immortality  have  been  brought  to  light  by 
the  gospel. 

Fifthly,  our  need  of  a  divine  influence  to  assist  our  faculties, 
together  with  God's  willingness  to  grant  us  the  aid  of  his  holy 
spirit,  we  learn  from  the  holy  scriptures;  and  without  a  revelation 
from  God,  of  some  kind,  all  our  views  of  this  matter  must  have 
been  merely  hypothetical.  \ 

Sixthly,  the  existence  of  other  orders  of  iutelligeut  creatures 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  sr 

would  have  remained  unknown  to  us,  or  at  best  but  barely  proba- 
ble, Iiad  not  God  condescended  to  inform  iis  in  a  supernatural  way. 
Now  we  know  that  we  have  brethren  in  some  other  region  of  the 
universe,  to  whose  society  our  heavenly  Father  intends  to  raise 
us,  if  we  act  well  our  part  in  this  state  of  probation.  We  learn  al- 
so, that  there  are  other  wicked  creatures  in  the  universe  besides 
ourselves;  that  they  have  power  to  suggest  evil  tlioughts  to  our 
minds,  in  sonic  w  ay  unknown  to  us;  and  that  it  is  a  matter  of  great 
consequence  for  us  to  set  a  proper  guard  upon  our  thoughts  and 
most  secret  desires.  These  ate  matters  of  infinite  concernment, 
on  which  our  virtue,  tranquillity  and  future  blessedness,  materially 
depend. 

Lastly,  w  ithout  revelation  we  could  never  have  known  the  in- 
tention of  God  to  raise  our  bodies  from  the  grave,  to  renew  the 
face  of  nature,  and  to  make  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  wherein 
righteousness  shall  dwell.  The  gloomy  thought  might  have  ac- 
companied us  through  life,  and  we  could  recur  to  nothing  but  con- 
jecture to  remove  it,  that  tlie  present  wretched  state  of  things 
would  continue  forever:  that  pur  descendants,  irt'suecession,  and 
all  the  innocent  animals  through  the  earth,  and  air,  and  water, 
would  be  a  prey  to  misery,  bloodshed  and  dissolution,  to  all  eterni- 
ty. But  revelation  brightens  the  prospect  before  us,  and  easts 
death  and  misery  "  into  the  back  ground  of  the  scene."  It  invites 
man  to  act  up  to  the  proper  dignity  of  lug  nature,  gives  him  assu- 
rances of  every  necessary  aid,  and  stimulates  him  by  prospects, 
calculated  to  rouse  into  action  all  the  intellectual  and  moral  fa- 
culties of  his  soul,  and  M'hichare  every  way  worthy  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  God.  In  a  word,  every  thing  contained  in  this 
heavenly  system,  is  friendly  to  virtue  and  human  happiness,  and 
no  man,  but  a  w  icked  one,  will  find  any  tling  in  it  to  terrify  or 
alarm  him. 

Those  points,  and  many  others,  might  he  pursued  to  great  ad- 
vantage; but  these  hints  may  suffice  to  show  the  connexion  of 
reason  and  revelation,  and  their  mutual  dejiendance  upon  each' 
other. 

He  that  rejects  revelation  because  he  possiesses  the  light  of 
reason,  is  like  an  astronomer  who  casts  all  his  ti  lescopes  into  the 
sea,  because  he  has  eyes,  wherewith  he  may  behold  the  stars  or 
celestial  planets.  He  who  neglects  and  despises  reason,  because 
he  has  revelation,  is  like  an  astronomer  who  blindfolds  his  eyes 
under  pretence  of  honoring  and  exalting  his  telescopes.  He  who 
uses  them  in  harmony,  is  like  an  astronomer  who  makes  a  proper 


9»  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

use  of  his  eyes  and  telescopes  together,  without  ever  dreaming 
that  either  of  them  can  be  spared  or  neglected,  except  by  an  ig- 
noramus that  is  unacquainted  with  their  utility.  For  ive  ally 
with  open  face,  beholding  as  in  a  glass,  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are 
changed  into  the  same  image,  f rom  glori/ to  glory,  even  as  by  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord.    11.  Cor.  Hi.  18. 

The  objections  commonly  urged  against  one  of  those  means  of 
knowledge,  are  equally  applicable  to  the  other. 

Is  reason  in  the  hands  of  depraved  and  fallen  creatures.^  so  is 
revelation.  Are  we  liable  to  mistake  the  voice  of  reason.*^  so  we 
are  the  voice  of  vevelation.  Have  men  perverted  the  faculties 
of  reason,  till  they  have  bewiMered  themselves  and  those  who 
heard  them.^  so  have  men  wrested  the  scriptures,  even  unto  their 
own  destruction.  Has  a  confnsed  system  of  foolish  opinions  been 
long  prevalent  in  the  world,  under  the  name  of  reason  and  philo- 
sophy? so  have  as  foolish  and  as  wicked  system's  long  prevailed 
in  the  world,  under  the  name  of  Christianity.  Are  there  many 
contradictory  opinions  which  claim  the  support  of  reason?  so  there 
ftje  many  as  contradictory  which  claim  the  support  of  revelation. 
Have  many  deists  pretended  to  be  led  to  infidelity  by /oi/oirtw^ 
their  reason?  so  they  have  pretended  to  be  led  into  it/;?/ rmrfi??^ 
the  scriptures.  Is  reason  unable  of  itself,  to  effect  and  change  the 
heart  of  maii?  so  i§  revelation.  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God 
only? 

They  also  have  the  same  recommendations.  Is  revelation  the 
gift  of  God?  so  also  is  reason.  Does  revelation  appear  to  better 
advantage  the  more  its  uature  and  principles  are  examined?  so  al- 
so does  reason.  Was  revelation  intended  for  the  instruction  and 
happiness  of  mankind?  so  also  was  reason.  Is  revelation  opposed 
to  all  foolishness  and  wickedness?  so  also  is  reason.  Does  the 
apostle  say  his  opposers  were  enemies  of  the  gospel?  so  does  he  say 
they  were  wicked  and  unreasonable  men.  Does  the  psalmist  say  the 
law  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes?  so  does  the  apostle 
8^y  it  is  our  reasonable  service.  Does  the  apostle  caution  us  against 
vain  philosophy  and  science  falsely  so  called?  so  he  does  against 
false  apostle$,  deceitful  workers,  who  would  transform  themselves 
into  the  apostles  of  Christ.  Jlre  we  commanded  to  search  the  scrip' 
tures,Sind  study  them  diligently?  so  we  arc  commanded  to  be  always 
ready  to  giveevery  one  an  answer,  that  asketh  us  a  reason  of  our  hope. 

It  is  true  the  apostle  opposes  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  and 
g{^ys  it  is  fooli?hness  with  God;  but  he  no  where  opposes  reason, 
sind  I  hope  no  ^me  \y'\\\  charge  him  with  saying  any  part  of  truth 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^9 

is  foolishness  with  God.  It  is  a  dangerous  thing,  you  say,  to  blend 
philosophy  and  Christianity  together,  and  the  very  way  our  reli- 
gion was  at  first  corrupted,  was  partly  by  connecting  it  with  the 
heathen  philosophy,  and  partly  by  bringing  into  the  profession 
fifit,  the  miserable  superstitions  of  their  idolatrous  theology.  I 
believe  this  account  is  perfectly  correct;  but  do  you  therefore  in- 
fer that  reason  is  a  very  dangerous  guide.^  It  seems  then,  you  are 
entirely  satisfied  that  Aristotle's  philosophy,  and  the  superstitious 
theology  of  the  Pagan  priests,  were  altogether  founded  upon  truth 
and  reason! 

If  the  heathen  philosophy  or  theology  were  true,  and  the  gospel 
true,  what  injury  would  result  from  their  being  brought  together? 
Does  one  truth  contradict  another,  or  must  we  really  take  for 
granted  that  one  truth  added  to  another,  will  produce  a  falsehood? 
Until  I  be  prevailed  on  to  admit  the  ridiculous  hypothesis  that  one 
part  of  truth  is  injured  and  destroyed  by  another,  I  must  be  per- 
mitted still  to  believe  that  no  philosophy  that  is  false,  was  ever 
supported  by  reason,  and  none  that  is  true  was  ever  unfriendly  to 
the  gospel. 

The  vain  philosophy  and  wisdom  of  this  world  which  St.  Paul 
so  justly  reprobated,  was  science  falsely  so  called,  i.  e.  it  did  not 
consist  in  real  knowledge,  which  has  the  first  principles  of  truth 
for  its  foundation;  but  it  consisted  in  a  system  of  fantastical  opin- 
ions, built  upon  unsupported  hypotheses,  that  were  invented  by 
the  vanity  and  roving  imaginations  of  men.  All  this  was  foolish- 
ness with  God,  because  it  was  real  foolishness  in  itself.  The  judg- 
ment of  God  is  according  to  truth,  and  he  pronounces  a  thing  to 
be  foolish  because  it  is  so:  he  never  cautioned  us  againstany 
branch  of  truth,  because  falsehood  is  dangerous;  or  against  the  ex- 
ercise of  reason,  because  it  is  dangerous  for  men  to  be  unreason- 
able. These  inconsii^tencies  belong  not  to  God,  or  to  his  inspired 
apostles:  we  have  secretly  and  inadvertently  borrowed  them  from 
the  dark  stratagems  of  popery,  and  as  sure  as  God  is  the  author 
of  reason  and  revelation,  and  as  truth  is  consistent  with  itself, 
no  branch  of  human  knowledge  will  ever  be  supported  by  one  and 
contradicted  by  the  other. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  conclude,  that  common  judgment,  reason  and 
revelation,  are  three  that  bear  record  on  earth,  and  these  three 
are  so  inseparably  united  that  we  cannot  abandon  any  one  of  them 
without  taking  leave  of  the  other  two. 


90  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

SECTION  VII. 

Of  analogy  and  presumption. 

Having  examined  the  three  cliiei*  sources  of  human  know- 
ledge; it  may  be  worth  vvliile  to  inquire  whether  there  be  any 
other  method  of  discovering  truth,  that  is  not  comprehended  in 
any  one  of  the  foregoing  means  of  instruction. 

I  am  unable  to  conceive  any  thing  else,  that  has  even  the  ap- 
pearance of  evidence,  excepting  it  be  the  subject  of  analogy;  and 
a  close  inspection, of  this  will  convince  us,  I  think,  that  analogy 
is  properly  compreliended  under  the  foregoing  division.  It  affords 
a  self-evident  probability,  and  thus  comes  under  the  province  of 
common  or  intuitive  judgment:  and  when  we  reason  upou  this 
ground,  we  may  be  led  to  many  probable  conclusions:  but  if  our 
first  principle  be  only  probable,  there  is  nothing  more  than  pro- 
bability in  any  conclusion  deduced  from  it  by  regular  reasoning. 
Let  it  suffice  to  illustrate  this  matter  by  three  examples. 

1.  There  is  a  self-evident  probability,  from  analogy,  that  the 
dther  planets  around  our  sun  are  the  habitations  of  some  kind  of 
living  creatures.  We  see  that  our  earth  abounds  with  various  or- 
ders of  animals,  possessing  life;  and  astronomers  have  proved  by 
very  clear  evidence,  that  the  other  planets  are  very  large  bodies, 
like  this  which  we  inhabit;  hence,  we  immediately  perceive  that 
there  is  a  very  strong  probability  that  those  vast  bodies  do  not  roll 
through  the  heavens  for  nothing,  any  more  than  the  world  in 
in  which  we  live,  but  that  they  minister  to  the  happiness  of  living 
creatures:  this  is  called  reasoning  from  analogy;  but  the  first 
principle  of  this  reasoning  is  self-evident.  How  did  we  learn,  or 
how  can  we  prove,  that  if  one  thing  is  known  to  resemble  another, 
in  some  particulars,  it  probably  resembles  it  in  some  others  that 
are  unknown?  Will  you  say  from  experience?  1  answer,  the  infe- 
rences we  draw  from  experience,  are  built  upon  the  same  analog}-: 
I  know  by  experience  that  day  and  night  have  succeeded  each 
other,  without  intermission,  for  thirty  years:  hence,  I  conclude, 
that  for  thirty  years  to  come,  the  same  uninterrupted  regularity 
will  continue.  But  this  conclusion  is  not  certain,  and  for  aught  I 
know  to  the  contrary,  the  sun  may  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  with- 
draw her  light,  in  less  than  thirty  years  from  this  day.  Can  any 
philosopher  demonstrate  the  contrary?  He  cannot.  The  conclu- 
sion is  only  probable,  because  it  is  built  on  a  first  principle  deri- 
ved from  analogy,  which  aiFords  no  other  than  probable  evidence. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  91 

2.  It  is  Tery  probable  that  the  ropublie  of  America,  will  some 
lime  be  cliangod  into  a  monarchy.  Yet  it  is  not  certain  that  it  ever 
will,  because  the  conclusion  is  only  built  upon  the  analogy  of  hu- 
man nature,  a^ntl  the  practice  of  former  ages  in  diflerent  parts  of 
tlie  workl. 

3.  There  is  a  self-evident  probability- that  if  God  should  give 
another  revelation  to  mankind,  it  will  also  be  attended  with  cer- 
tain difficulties,  which  could  only  be  solved  by  candid  and  patient 
reflection,  and  that  it  would  contain  some  masteries  beyond  the 
grasp  of  human  understanding.  This  condition  is  also  drawn 
from  analogy.  The  works  of  creation,  the  course  of  providence, 
the  law  of  Moses,  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  every  part  of  the  Al- 
mighty's w  orks  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  unto  this  day,  are 
of  this  description.  They  are  full  of  difficulties,  and  even  contra- 
dictions, in  the  judgment  of  those  who  are  too  proud,  too  merry, 
or  too  slothful  to  examine  them;  but  to  the  candid  and  sincere, 
those  difficulties  only  aflord  matter  of  diligence,  and  useful 
improvements,  while  the  incomprehensible  parts  aftbrd  mattev  of 
humility  and  just  veneration  for  that  intinite  being,  who  cannot 
be  completely  comprehended  by  any  tiuite  understanding.  But 
that  another  revelation,  w  ould  exactly  resemble  the  foregoing  in 
those  particulars,  is  only  probable:  God  may  hereafter  change 
the  state  of  the  w  ovld,  and  the  nature  of  man's  probation;  the 
powers  of  evil  may  be  so  subdued,  and  virtue  and  piety  so  esta- 
blished, that  the  same  degree  of  laborious  thinking  may  not  be 
required,  that  is  noAV  needful  for  mankind;  and  in  such  a  state  of 
things,  a  revelation  may  be  given,  the  evidence  and  principles  of 
which  will  be  perceived  in  a  more  immediate  and  intuitive  way, 
without  the  slow  method  of  comparison  and  consequential  rea- 
soning. 

The  probability  arising  from  analogy,  is  sometimes  called  pre- 
sumjJtive  evidence.  When  men  are  cast  ii»to  prison,  there  is  a  pre- 
sumption that  they  will  try  to  make  their  escai>e,  because  the 
supposition  accords  with  the  analogy  of  nature;  and  if  they  de- 
clare they  will  not  go  away  from  the  prison,  we  are  not  disposed 
ta  leave  the  doors  open  upon  the  strength  of  their  promise,  because 
there  is  too  strong  a  ])resumption  against  them. 

AVhen  events  are  related  by  any  person  that  are  very  extraor- 
dinary, and  not  according  to  (he  common  analogy  or  resemblance 
of  occurrences  which  the  events  of  one  age  or  country  bears  to 
those  of  another,  there  ariseth  a  presumption  against  the  truth  of 
his  relation.  But  this  presumption  can  never  rise  higher  than  pro- 


%2  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

bability,  and  totally  disappears  when  combatted  by  positive 
evidence. 

If  an  individual  should  fell  me  he  saw  my  friend  yesterday,  who 
died  more  than  a  year  ago,  and  conversed  with  him  for  half  an 
hour,  the  presumption  would  be  so  strong  against  it,  that  I  should 
be  apt  to  question  the  factj  but  if  twelve  men  whom  I  could  name, 
should  corroborate  his  testimony  and  declare  solemnly  that  they 
Avere  present  in  open  daylight,  and  conversed  with  my  deceased 
friend  for  half  an  hour,  1  could  no  more  disbelieve  them  than  I 
could  give  up  all  contidence  in  my  best  tried  friends  and  acquain- 
tances on  earth. 

When  the  first  astronomer  informed  his  contemporaries,  that 
he  could  name  the  precise  minute,  for  months  beforehand,  when 
there  would  be  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  or  the  moon,  there  was  a 
strong  presiimplion  that  it  was  mere  conjecture;  but  the  evidence 
of  sense  has  fully  convinced  the  world,  that  truth  may  stand  di- 
rectly opposite  to  the  highest  probabilities  that  are  only  presump- 
tive; and  of  course,  the  probabilities  arising  from  analogy,  should 
only  be  credited  when  there  is  no  clear  evidence  against  them,  and 
not  even  then  with  a  belief  too  decisive  and  dogmatical. 

Infidels  appear  to  be  governed  in  their  peculiar  opinions,  chief- 
ly by  analogy  and  presumption.  They  will  not  believe  that  man 
was  ever  in  a  state  of  innocence  and  perfect  happiness,  or  that  the 
elements  of  nature  were  ever  different  from  their  present  arrange- 
ments: they  will  not  believe  a  revelation  was  ever  given  from 
heaven:  they  will  not  believe  miracles  were  ever  performed:  they 
will  not  believe  any  prophecy  concerning  a  different  state  of  the 
world  in  future:  they  will  not  believe  the  christian  doctrine  of  a 
future  state,  or  that  mankind  will  ever  be  raised  from  the  dead. 
And  why  all  this  unbelief?  Is  it  for  want  of  evidence.^  not  at  all: 
the  evidence  is  so  clear  that  they  have  to  do  violence  to  their  rea- 
son to  resist  it;  but  they  have  contracted  an  almost  unconquerable 
fondness  for  analogy  and  presumption,  which  they  straiif  to  the 
uttermost,  and  prefer  to  the  plainest  and  most  conclusive  deduc- 
tions of  reason. 

If  we  follow  the  dictates  of  common  sense  and  reason,  and  be- 
lieve the  truths  supported  by  them  with  corresponding  confidence, 
they  call  us  dog^matical.  They  are  resolved,  if  we  believe  them,  "to 
hold  themselves  in  that  state  of  doubt,  and  suspense  of  judgment, 
winch  is  90  becoming  in  a  philosopher.-'  But  that  sceptical  doubt 
is  only  indulged,  it  would  appear,  when  religious  matters  are  in 
question:  in  matters  contrary  to  religion,  they  seem  so  very  dog* 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  93 

matical,  that  they  are  bent  upon  a  most  obstinate  adherence  to 
their  opinions,  in  opposition  to  all  reason,  Avhen  a  bare  presump- 
tion would  be  their  only  ground  of  credence,  if*  there  was  no  tes- 
timony against  them. 

Mr.  Hume  says  "  A  wise  man  will  proportion  his  belief  to  the 
evidence.''^  I  presume  this  philosopher  never  spoke  a  more  im- 
portant truth;  and  if  all  men  would  follow  it,  there  would  be 
a  death  blow  given  both  to  the  sceptical  and  dogmatical  spirit, 
which  equally  offends  against  this  axiom.  The  former,  consists  in 
giving  a  less  degree  of  credit  than  the  evidence  requires,  and  the 
latter,  in  giving  a  greater:  and  it  is  as  hard  to  determine  which  is 
the  more  dangerous  or  irrational,  as  it  is  to  determine  which  of 
two  travellers  whom  a  third  conducts  through  an  unknown  desert, 
most  effectually  loses  the  benefit  of  his  guide;  the  man  who  runs 
on  before  him,  or  the  one  who  loiters  in  the  woods  behind. 

Scepticism  and  dogmatism  both  consist  in  believing  without 
evidence:  the  former,  in  believing  a  subject  is  doubtful  when  there 
is  no  evidence  of  its  being  doubtful,  the  latter  in  believing  a  sub- 
ject to  be  certain,  when  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  certainty.  He 
who  believes  any  proposition  with  the  confidence  of  certainty, 
which  has  no  foundation  but  analogy,  is  very  dogmatical;  he  who 
doubts  of  a  truth  that  is  self-evident,  like  tbat  of  his  own  existence, 
is  equally  sceptical;  and  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  those  ex- 
tremes to  meet  in  the  same  person. 

Lifidel  philosophers  have  doubted  the  present  existence  of  the 
world;  they  have  doubted  the  evidence  of  sense  and  all  human 
testimony;  they  have  doubted  "  the  axioms  of  mathematics:"  and 
yet  those  very  men  have  believed  with  great  confidence,  that  the 
course  of  nature  has  uniformly  been  the  same  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  that  no  miracle  was  ever  wrought,  and  that  no  reve^ 
lation  luas  ever  given  from  God  to  man.  Now  if  we  had  no  man- 
ner of  evidence  that  such  things  ever  did  occur,  the  sole  evidence 
we  could  have  that  they  did  not,  would  only  be  presumptive,  and 
therefore  in  its  very  nature  doubtful:  from  the  analogy  of  nature, 
so  far  as  it  has  come  under  our  observation,  we  would  presume  it 
has  always  been  the  same;  and  if  mankind  in  former  ages  had  seen 
astonishing  miracles,  we  would  presume  again,  from  the  analogy 
of  human  nature,  that  they  would  transmit  accounts  of  ihem  to  pos- 
terity; but  hoAv  can  it  be  demonstrated,  or  proved  by  any  other 
argument,  either  that  the  course  of  nature  has  been  the  same  from 
the  creation,  or  that  mankind  in  former  ages,  were  as  much  dispo- 
ned to  transmit  accounts  of  miraculous  facts  to  posterltv,  as  the 
N 


94*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

men  of  this  generation?  It  is  impossible  for  our  objectors  to  pro- 
duce any  such  proof. 

-  Will  they  affirm  then,  that  the  thing  is  self-evident?  That  there 
is  a  self-evident  probabilitij  of  it,  is  granted;  but  this  implies  a  de- 
gree of  uncertainty;  and  if  such  uncertain  analogies  are  among 
their  most  confident  opinions,  let  the  world  judge  who  are  the  men 
that  properly  merit  the  charge  of  being  dogmatical. 

Thus  it  appears,  if  we  had  no  positive  evidence  that  a  miracle 
was  ever  Avrought,  the  contrary  would  be  a  proper  subject  of  that 
doubtful  kind  of  belief,  or  suspense  of  judgment,  in  which  our 
philosophers  afteet  to  glory,  and  upon  which  they  congratulate 
each  other,  on  their  freedom  from  vulgar  prejudices;  but  what 
shall  we  say  of  their  dogmatical  spirit,  w hen  we  see  them  adhere 
to  their  presumptions  in  opposition  to  proofs  and  arguments  the 
most  convincing  and  indubitable?    . 

Will  they  say  a  presumptive  probability  can  never  be  overcome 
by  any  other  evidence?  And  suppose  an  army  of  seven  thousand 
men  should  conquer  an  arniy  of  ten  thousand,  both  to  all  appear- 
ance equally  prepared  for  the  battle,  the  like  of  w  hich  has  some- 
times happened;  will  any  one  say  there  was  no  ground  to  presume 
that  the  army  of  ten  thousand  would  be  victorious?  or,  that  this 
presumption  ought  to  be  adhered  to,  with  obstinate  perseverance, 
in  opposition  to  all  the  evidence  of  sense,  or  of  human  testimony, 
that  could  be  brought  against  it? 

Whyi  the  strange  influence  of  the  loadstone  was  first  discover- 
ed, it  had  to  combat  as  strong  presumptions  from  analogy  as  any 
miracle  whatsoever:  and  will  our  opponents  insist  that  no  evidence 
should  influence  us  to  relinquish  our  belief  of  such  uncertain  proba- 
bilities? Then  all  navigators  and  philosophers  are  fools  for  believ- 
ing in  the  mystery  of  magnetism,  which,  like  miracles,  suspends 
the  law  of  gravitation. 

To  this  might  be  added  the  innumerable  mysteries  of  mechanical 
operations  and  chemistry,  many  of  which  are  so  opposite  to  the 
whole  course  of  my  experience,  at  least,  and  have  such  strong  pre- 
sumption against  them,  that  I  might  justly  consider  them  as  very 
doubtful  matters,  were  they  not  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  men 
whose  veracity  cannot  be  doubted. 

But  perhaps  I  am  mistaken  all  this  while,  in  taking  for  granted 
that  our  sceptical  philosophers,  who  have  doubted  the  very  exis- 
tence of  earth  and  heaven,  were  at  the  same  time  very  dogmatical 
in  opinions  founded  upon  mere  presumption.  It  cannot  be  possible, 
says  a  seriou*  enquirer,  that  they  only  doubted  of  «ome  things 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  95 

and  in  others  were  as  confident  as  other  people:  much  less,  that 
their  doubts  arose  in  proportion  to  tlie  strength  of  the  evidence, 
and  that  they  chose  always  to  be  confident,  where  there  was  no  ev- 
idence, but  some  uncertain  probability!  Was  it  not  their  grand 
maxim  that  "all  things  are  equally  doubtful?" 

I  answer,  this  was  indeed  their  professed  maxim,  but  their  own 
writings,  as  well  as  their  actions,  will  prove  that  they  considered 
themselves  at  liberty  to  depart  from  it,  whenever  it  might  suit 
their  convenience.  I  desire  no  better  testimony  in  the  case  than 
that  of  Mr.  Hume  himself.  Every  one  acquainted  with  his  phi- 
losophical writings,  knows  that  he  not  only  professed  to  doubt,  or 
disbelieve,  the  existence  of  God,  angel  and  spirit;  but  that  he  doubt- 
ed the  existenice  of  earth  and  sea,  and  laboured  to  prove  that  there 
is  no  certainty  in  mathematical  demonstration.  And  is  it  possible 
that  this  same  gentleman  had  at  the  same  time,  some  very  dogma- 
tical opinions?  Hear  his  own  words: 

"  The  violations  of  truth"  says  he, "  are  more  common  in  the 
testimony  concerning  religious  miracles,  than  in  that  concerning 
any  other  matter  of  fact."  And  did  not  our  philosopher  believe 
this  proposition  very  confidently?  So  much  so  that  he  immediately 
adds,  "This  must  diminish  very  much  the  authority  of  the  former 
testimony,  and  make  us  form  a  general  resolution,  never  to  lend 
any  attention  to  it,  with  whatever  specious  pretext  it  may  be  co- 
vered."* 

From  this  we  may  perceive  with  how  much  confidence  Mr.  Hume 
believed  "  that  the  course  of  nature  had  been  uniform  from  the 
beginning,  and  that  no  religious  miracles  was  ever  wrought."  His 
belief  in  this  was  so  dogmatical,  tliat  it  led  him  to  "  form  a  gene- 
ral resolution"  to  reject  all  evidence  against  his  opinion,  and 
"  never  lend  any  attention  to  it,  with  whatever  specious  pretext  it 
may  be  covered." 

Thus,  you  observe,  his  "  sceptical  doubts  and  suspense  of  judg- 
ment,"  are  only  resorted  to  when  those  subjects  are  introduced, 
concerning  which  he  chuses  to  doubt  or  disbelieve;  but  when  evi- 
dence is  to  be  brought  against  the  beloved  presumptions,  founded 
on  analogy,  the.boasted  "  suspense  of  judgment"  is  laid  aside,  and 
"  a  general  resolution"  substituted  in  its  place,  "  never  to  lend 
any  attention"  to  the  evidence,  but  to  adhere  to  his  own  dogmas 
with  the  unshaken  firmness  of  a  popish  inquisitor. 


*  See  his  Essay  on  Miracles,  page  304^;  and  Dr.  Campbell's  an= 
«wer,  p.  102. 


W  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

In  another  part  of  the  same  essay,  he  says,  «  No  tesfimony  for 
any  kiud  (  f  miracle  can  ever  possibly  amount  to  a  probability, 
much  less  to  a  proof." 

These  instances,  to  which  many  of  a  like  nature  might  be  ad- 
ded, seem  indicative  of  very  strong  faith:  and  our  wise  men,  it  ap- 
pears, who  have  so  much  complained  of  the  blind  credulity  of  the 
vulgar,  are  found  to  be  as  resolute  in  their  belief  as  their  honest 
neighbours.  Their  inconsistency  would  not  be  so  intolerable,  if 
they  could  be  prevailed  on  to  believe  their  own  senses,  and  the 
common  dictates  of  reason;  but  instead  of  this,  they  turn  human 
knowledge  upside  doMu;  in  matters  that  are  self-evident,  they  glo- 
ry in  being  doubtful,  and  only  become  confident  in  those  cases  that 
are  naturally  dubious  and  uncertain;  and  which  is  worse  than  all, 
they  carry  their  immovable  faith  so  high  as  to  resist  every  kind 
of  positive  evidence,  and  resolve  not  to  give  it  a  bearing.  But  it 
is  not  a  little  surprising,  that  the  same  persons  who  in  general  man- 
ifest such  a  violent  fondness  for  analogy,  abandon  this  ground 
entirely,  when  it  suits  their  purpose,  and  draw  conclusions  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  it.  Almost  the  whole  of  that  knowledge  which 
we  denominate  experience,  depends  upon  the  veracity  of  our  sen- 
ses: it  is  derived  through  the  medium  of  smelling,  tasting,  feeling, 
seeing,  and  hearing.  There  is  a  regular  uniformity  in  the  opera- 
tions of  these  senses  through  the  general  course  of  our  lives,  and 
■we  daily  find  the  objects  around  us  to  be  what  they  are  represent- 
ed to  be  by  this  uniform  experience.  Our  senses  never  cause  us 
to  take  fire  for  water,  or  water  for  fire.  AVhen  my  eyes  testify  that 
one  man  alone  comes  into  my  room,  I  always  find  there  is  but  one, 
and  I  am  in  no  danger  of  mistaking  him  for  a  company  of  five, 
^even,  or  ten.  And  so  of  other  things. 

Now  if  a  man  declare  he  saw  a  miracle  performed;  that  he  saw 
for  instance,  a  person  standing  by  the  sea  side,  who  commanded  a 
tree  to  be  plucked  up  by  the  roots,  and  be  removed  into  the  sea, 
and  it  instantly  obeyed  him;  there  would  be  a  strong  presumption 
against  the  reality  of  this  fact.  AVhy.^  Because  of  its  being  so  con- 
trary to  experience:  i.  e.  contrary  to  what  we  have  generally  seen 
and  heard.  And  suppose  another  man  should  testify  of  a  certain 
particular  case,  in  which  his  senses  actually  deceived  him,  and 
their  regular  dictates  led  him  to  believe  a  falsehood;  there  would 
he  precisely  the  same  presumption  against  the  reality  of  this  fact. 
Why?  Because  it  would  be  equally  opposite  to  the  general  course 
of  our  experience.  What  ought  we  then  to  do  w  ith  these  extraor- 
dinary cases.^  "NVc  ought  surely  to  withold  our  assent,  till  the  facts 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  9^ 

be  supported  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence,  that  Mould  bear 
the  closest  scrutiny  and  inspection.  Then,  as  reasonable  beings, 
we  should  yield  to  the  conclusion,  without  making  any  arbitrary 
additions  to  it:  we  should  believe  that  in  cases  thus  authenticated 
miracles  had  been  wrought,  and  the  senses  of  men  had  deceived 
them. 

But  what  is  the  conduct  of  our  infidel  philosophers  in  these 
matters.^  The  most  inconsistent  that  can  be  imagined.  In  ease  of 
miracles,  they  refuse  all  evidence  a  fair  hearing,  and  pretend  that 
no  proof  is  able  to  evercome  the  presumption  arising  from  common 
experience;  but  as  to  those  particular  facts  which  are  produced 
as  intances  of  '"  fallacy  in  the  senses,"  they  not  only  give  them  a 
ready  hearing,  but  entirely  abandon  the  presumption  arising  from 
common  experience, and  draw  a  conclusion  indirect  contradiction 
of  iti  They  grasp  the  new  circumstance  with  uncommon  fondness 
and  not  only  believe  it  with  a  superficial  examination,  but  leap 
into  the  wide  conclusion,  that  all  other  cases  are  of  the  same  na- 
ture.* If  the  senses  deceive  us  in  one  thing,  say  they,  why  not  in 
all.''  It  appears  then, that  if  we  could  once  prevail  on  those  sages 
to  believe  a  miracle  had  ever  been  wrought,  they  would  instantly 
conclude  that  all  men  are  working  miracles  every  hour  of  their 
Jives-  If  the  laws  of  nature  have  been  suspended  in  one  case,  why 
not  in  all?  If  one  part  of  matter  (the  loadstone)  can  counteract 
the  law  of  gravitation,  why  not  all  parts?  If  the  sun  was  eclipsed 
on  one  certain  day,  why  not  every  day?  If  a  certain  medicine 
should  cure  the  yellow  fever  in  one  case,  why  not  in  all  casesf 
and,  to  put  an  end  to  the  queries,  we  might  add,  if  one  man  should 
happen  to  be  an  idiot,  why  not  all  men. 

If  instances  are  produced,  of  certain  particular  cases  in  which 
the  testimony  of  sense  is  fallacious,  the  only  fair  conclusion  of 
reason  would  be,  "  that  in  some  rare  cases  our  senses  may  deceive 
us:"  and  if  our  opponents  will  produce  instances  of  the  kind,  which 
will  bear  as  close  inspection,  as  the  miracles  ascribed  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  I,  for  one,  will  yield  to  the  conclusion;  but  I  hope 
they  will  excuse  every  man  who  understands  the  principles  of  rea- 
soning, from  drawing  an  universal  conclusion  from  premises  so 
particular,  that  they  have  to  explore  the  most  hidden  secrets  of 
nature  to  find  any  one  instance,  but  such  as  may  be  detected  in 
half  an  hour,  and  shown  to  be  no  fallacy  of  the  senses. 

Dr.  Reid  has  convinced  me,  that  the  great  complaint  concerning 
the  fallacy  of  our  senses,  is  a  mere  fiction  of  philosophers;  and  I 


*  See  Berkley  and  Hume. 


96  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

cannot  help  being  doubtful  (which  they  say  I  ought  always  to  be) 
whether  they  be  able  to  produce  a  single  instance  that  will  bear 
examination. 

"Complaints  of  the  fallacy  of  the  senses/'  says  Mr.  Reid,"have 
been  very  common  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times,  especially 
among  the  philosophers:  and  if  we  should  take  for  granted  all 
that  they  have  said  on  this  subject,  the  natural  conclusion  from 
it  might  seem  to  be,  that  the  senses  are  given  to  us  by  some  ma- 
lignant djemon  on  purpose  to  delude  us,  rather  than  that  they 
are  formed  by  the  wise  and  beneficial  author  of  nature,  to  give 
us  true  information  of  things  necessary  to  our  preservation  and 
happiness. 

Many  things  called  the  deceptions  of  the  senses  are  only  con- 
clusions rashly  drawn  from  the  testimony  of  the  senses.  In  these 
eases  the  testimony  of  the  senses  is  true,  but  we  rashly  draw  a 
conclusion  from  it,  which  does  not  necessarily  follow.  We  are  dis- 
posed to  impute  our  errors  rather  to  false  information  than  to  in- 
conclusive reasoning,  and  to  blame  our  senses  for  the  wrong  con- 
clusions we  draw  from  their  testimony. 

"  Thus,  when  a  man  has  taken  a  counterfeit  guinea  for  a  true 
one,  he  says  his  senses  deceived  him;  but  he  lays  the  blame  where 
it  ought  not  to  be  laid:  for  we  may  ask  him,  did  your  senses  give 
a  false  testimony  of  the  colour,  or  of  the  figure,  or  of  the  impres- 
sion? No.  But  this  is  all  that  they  testified,  and  this  they  testified 
truly:  from  these  premises  you  concluded  that  it  was  a  true  gui- 
nea; but  this  conclusion  does  not  follow;  you  erred  therefore,  not 
by  relying  upon  the  testimony  of  sense,  but  by  judging  rashly  from 
its  testimony:  not  only  are  your  senses  innocent  of  this  error,  but 
it  is  only  by  their  information  that  it  can  be  discovered.  If  you 
consult  thera  properly,  they  will  inform  yon  that  what  you  took 
for  a  guinea  is  base  metal,  or  is  deficient  in  weight,  and  this  caa 
only  be  known  by  the  testimony  of  sense. 

"  I  remember  to  have  met  with  a  man  who  thought  the  argu- 
ment used  by  protestants,  against  the  popish  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  from  the  testimony  of  our  senses,  inconclusive;  because, 
said  he,  instances  may  be  given  where  several  of  our  senses  may 
deceive  us:  How  do  we  know  then  that  there  may  not  be  cases 
wherein  they  all  deceive  us,  and  no  sense  is  left  to  detect  the  fal- 
lacy? I  begged  of  him  to  know  an  instance  wherein  several  of  our 
senses  deceive  us.  I  take,  said  he,  a  piece  of  soft  turf,  1  cut  it 
into  the  shape  of  an  apple;  with  the  essence  of  apple  I  give  it  the 
i»niell  of  an  apple;  and  with  paint,  I  give  it  the  skin  and  colour  of 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ga 

an  apple.  Here  then  is  a  body,  which,  if  you  judge  by  your 
eye,  by  your  touch,  or  by  your  smell,  is  an  apple. 

"  To  this  I  answer,  that  no  one  of  our  senses  deceives  us  in  this 
case.  My  sight  and  touch  testify  that  it  has  the  shape  and  colour 
efan  apple:  this  is  true.  The  sense  of  smelling  testifies  that  it 
has  the  smell  of  an  apple:  this  is  likewise  true,  and  is  no  decep- 
tion. Where  then  lies  the  deception?  It  is  evident  it  lies  in  this, 
that  because  this  body  has  some  qualities  belonging  to  an  apple, 
I  conclude  that  it  is  an  apple.  This  is  a  fallacy,  not  of  the  senses, 
but  of  inconclusive  reasoning."* 

This  candid  and  ingenious  author  examines  various  other 
grounds  of  this  charge  against  the  veracity  of  the  senses,  and 
shows  that  they  are  rash  conclusions,  founded  on  our  ignorance  of 
the  laws  of  nature;  and  makes  it  appear  that  though  our  senses, 
like  all  our  other  faculties,  are  naturally  weak,  and  subject  to 
accidental  disorders,  yet  no  case  has  been  produced  in  which, 
upon  careful  examination,  our  senses  has  given  deceitful  tes- 
timony. 

It  is  true,  that  in  some  cases  the  representation  of  one  sense, 
(that  of  sight  for  example)  if  we  judge  from  the  first  appearances 
»f  things,  will  lead  us  to  a  false  conclusion;  but  is  it  the  part  of  a 
philosopher  to  draw  his  conclusions  from  the  first  appearance,  or 
from  that  view  that  is  acquired  by  a  patient  examination?  If  we 
take  no  pains  to  examine,  but  draw  our  conclusions  from  the  first 
superficial  glance,  we  may  take  a  sophism  for  a  sound  argument, 
and  then  declare  that  our  reason  had  deceived  us;  or  we  might 
draw  a  rash  conclusion  from  the  first  view  of  scripture  phrases, 
and  then  say  the  oracles  of  God  are  fallacious,  and  the  apostles 
have  deceived  us:  but  these  conclusions,  though  exactly  similar 
to  those  which  are  brought  to  discredit  the  senses,  would  excite 
the  just  indignation  of  any  person  of  common  reflection;  he  would 
instantly  see  that  the  delusion  of  which  we  complain,  was  brought 
on,  not  by  any  deceit  in  our  faculties,  or  in  the  scriptures,  but  by 
our  own  voluntary  ignorance  and  want  of  thought. 

I  will  suppose  an  Indian  from  the  western  woods,  comes  into  our 
civilized  region,  and,  among  other  curiosities,  he  is  struck  with 
the  appearance  of  a  man  standing  behind  a  looking  glass:  he  gazes 
awhile  with  silent  astonishment,  thinking  one  of  his  red  brethren 
is  really  standing  before  him.  This  man's  senses,  you  say,  have 
deceived   him;   he  thinks  there  is  a  glass  w indow  in  the  wall,  and 


*  Reid's  Essays,  vol.  1,  page  388 — 291. 


100  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

A  philosoijher  accosts  him,  and  says, "  you  must  know,  unlearn- 
ed stranger,  that  there  is  no  real  man  behind  that  wall;  your  sen- 
ses are  altogether  fallacious,  and  I  counsel  you  to  take  warning 
from  this  plain  example;  lay  aside  your  vulgar  and  dogmatical 
confidence  in  sensation,  and  learn  to  follow  the  noble  guide  of 
reason! 

Indian.  "  Pray  Mr.  Philosopher,  how  do  you  prove  by  reason, 
that  there  is  no  real  man  standing  before  me?" 

Philo.  "  I  know  there  is  not:  I  am  certain  of  it." 

Indian.  "  Is  this  what  you  call  giving  a  reason,  that  you  know, 
and  that  you  are  certain?'^ 

Philo.  "  No:  but  it  has  been  proved  a  thousand  times,  and  every 
body  in  our  country  knows  it  to  be  as  I  tell  you." 

Indian.  "  If  it  has  been  proved  a  thousand  times,  you  can  sure- 
ly prove  it  once:  I  want  to  know  what  is  the  argument  which 
proves  that  this  is  not  really  one  of  my  red  brethren  from  some  of 
our  towns." 

Philo.  "  You  may  plainly  see,  by  observing  the  motions  of  that 
supposed  man,  that  it  is  nothing  but  a  figure  of  yourself:  if  you 
raise  your  hand,  or  move  any  other  part  of  your  body,  you  will  see 
that  figure  imitate  all  your  actions  exactly." 

Indian.  "  Do  you  call  it  offering  a  reason  then,  to  tell  me  I  can 
•plainly  see?  did  you  not  just  now  declare  that  my  sight  is  deceit- 
ful, and  ought  not  to  be  trusted.^  And  now  you  appeal  to  my  fal- 
lacious senses,  and  call  this  offering  a  feason!" 

Philo.  "  But  if  you  will  be  at  the  pains  to  take  down  this  glass, 
you  may  both  see  aud  feel  that  there  is  nothing  but  a  solid  wall  be- 
hind itc  therefore  it  is  not  possible  that  you  could  have  seen  any 
other  man  but  the  figure  of  yourself." 

Indian.  "  It  is  true,  I  both  see  and  feel  that  there  is  nothing  be- 
hind this  glass  but  a  solid  wall;  but  you  say  my  senses  are  de- 
eeitful:  how  do  I  know  then  but  that  there  is  really  a  window 
through  the  wall,  and  a  man  standing  on  the  other  side,  notwith- 
standing what  I  see  &ndfeel?  you  first  tell  me  my  senses  deceive 
me,  and  propose  to  prove  it  by  reason;  and  then  you  turn  about 
and  appeal  to  my  senses  for  the  proof!  I  suspect  sir,  that  you  are 
deceitful,  and  that  I  shall  gain  more  wisdom  and  happiness  by 
trusting  my  senses,  then  by  following  your  shuffling  and  contra- 
dictory counsels." 

Thus  it  evidently  appears  that  reason  does  not  correct  the  sup- 
posed fallacy  of  the  senses;  but  we  are  indebted  to  the  testimony 
of  the  senses  for  a  correction  of  those  fallacious  conclusions  which 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  loi 

Are  hastily  drawn  from  the  first  appearance  of  things.  As  to  the 
pretended  imposition  upon  our  judgment,  by  seeing  ourselves  in  a 
mirror,  or  seeing  a  strait  stick  appear  crooked  in  the  water,  a  sa- 
rage  or  a  child  maybe  deceived  by  these  appearances  for  a  little 
while;  but  it  is  soon  discovered  even  by  a  child,  that  he  only  sees 
himself  in  the  glass,  and  that  astrait  stick  does  not  become  crook- 
ed by  being  held  in  the  water.  And  this  discovery  is  made,  not  by 
the  philosopher's  boasted  reason,  but  by  a  little  attention  to  the 
plain  dictates  of  common  sense. 


SECTION  vm. 

JPotiT  defective  rules  of  judgment  examined. 

My  thoughts  have  been  wandering  through  the  creation  in  quest 
of  some  other  rule  of  judgment,  by  which  to  distinguish  truth 
from  falsehood,  beside  those  I  have  attempted  to  explain;  l*tit  they 
had  to  return,  like  Noah's  dove,  without  being  able  to  find  any 
permanent  resting  place.  Farbe  it  from  me  to  assert  that  there 
is  no  other  kind  of  evidence,  merely  because  I  am  unable  to  find  it 
out;  more  capable  minds  may  be  able  to  discover  what  is  beyond 
the  grasp  of  my  scanty  thought;  but  until  some  other  rule  of  judg- 
ment shall  be  made  plain  to  my  view,  it  will  be  readily  granted 
that  the  foregoing  rules  of  judgment  ought  to  be  my  only  grounds 
of  credence. 

By  intuitive  judgment,  we  are  enabled  to  perceive  immediate- 
ly that  some  things  are  certainly  true,  that  others  are  necessarily 
so,  and  that  others  have  a  self-evident  probability;  that  is,  are 
more  likely  to  be  true  than  false.  We  may  build  upon  this  foun- 
dation, and  thus  enlarge  our  knowledge  by  regular  reasoning,  and 
still  more  by  the  proper  study  of  revelation;  but  if  we  depart  from 
these  rules  or  methods  of  distinguishing  truth  from  falsehood,  we 
are  at  once  lost  in  a  wide  wilderness;  nothing  but  hypothesis  and 
conjectures  surround  us,  and  all  things  are  equally  doubtful. 

It  is  true,  several  other  rules  of  judging  might  be  adopted;  but 
upon  a  close  inspection  there  appears  to  be  no  evidence  in  them, 
and  they  are  very  apt  to  contradict  each  other.  It  may  not  be  im- 
proper to  mention  a  few  of  them,  and  appeal  to  the  reader's  un- 


£02  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

govern  our  belief,  instead  of  common  sense,  and  reason,  and  reve- 
lation. 

1st.  Let  it  be  proposed  as  a  rule  of  judgment,  « that  the  things 
ive  have  been  taught  from  our  youth  are  certainly  true,  and  those 
which  we  have  not  thus  learned  from  our  parents  and  teachers,  are 
certainly  false." 

This  is  indeed  a  very  short  rule,  and  one  that  is  very  gratifying 
to  indolence:  for  if  every  thing  be  true  that  I  have  been  taught,  if  I 
must  govern  my  belief  by  this  rule,  and  reject  every  thing  that 
does  not  accord  with  it,  I  may  at  once  lay  by  my  pen,  my  reasoa 
and  my  bible:  if  I  can  only  make  shift  to  remember  wliat  my  fa- 
ther and  my  instructors  told  me  to  believe,  it  is  entirely  sufficient, 
and  this  is  all  the  improvement  of  knowledge  I  ought  to  look  for. 
But  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  look  abroad  into  the  world,  I  can- 
not help  seeing  that  my  rule,  thougli  short,  is  able  to  produce  a 
long  string  of  contradictions.  It  teaches  me  that  every  thing  in 
the  world  is  true,  or  else  that  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  for  a  thing 
to  be  true,  in  order  for  it  to  command  our  belief. 

Pagans  must  believe  in  thirty  thousand  gods;  Mahometans  must 
believe  in  the  whimsies  of  the  alcoran;  Papists  must  believe  in 
purgatory  and  transubstantiation;  Deists  and  Jews  must  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  crucified  impostor;  and  Atheists  must  be- 
lieve there  is  no  God  of  power,  wisdom  and  goodness,  but  that 
there  is  a  blind  god,  or  goddess, called  Fate  or  Chance,  which 
made  this  great  world  ont  of  atoms.  My  new  rule,  I  find,  will  support 
all  those  persons  in  their  difterent  creeds,  provided  only,  that  they 
have  been  tanght  to  believe  these  conti-adictory  opinions,  by  their 
parents  and  authorized  teachers  of  religion  and  philosophy. 

Suppose  then  that  I  lay  this  rule  aside,  and,  Hying  from  one  ex- 
treme to  anotlier,  receive  it  as  a  maxim,  "  that  every  thing  I 
have  been  taught  from  my  youth  is  certainly  false;"  will  this  mend 
the  matter?  so  fiir  from  it,  that,  if  possible,  it  will  make  it 
worse:  for  if  mankind  are  to  receive  this  for  a  rule  of  judgment, 
it  will  follow  not  only  that  all  we  have  received  from  others  in 
our  education,  is  certainly  false,  butit  will  be  equally  evident  that 
if  we  make  any  new  discoveries  by  reflection,  they  also  will  be- 
come falsehood  when  we  teach  them  to  our  children,  and  they 
ought  of  consequence  to  reject  them  as  such;  otherv.ise  they  will 
violate  the  rule,  whi^h  teaches,  that  every  thing  our  fathers  and 
instructors  have  inculcated  upon  us,  should  be  rejected  as  a  pre- 
judice of  education.  If  we  are  to  govern  our  belief  by  this,  1  hope 
our  children  are  to  have  the  same  privilege,  and  thus,  what  is  true  in 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  los 

one  age  becomes  false  in  another,  and  therefore  uho  can  blame 
philosophers  for  retiring  into  the  shades  of  scepticism,  to  enjoy  a 
state  of  profound  ignorance,  and  smile  at  the  whimsical  and  incon- 
sistent credulity  of  mankind?  True,  we  could  not  blame  them,  if 
the  world  was  favoured  with  no  other  method  of  discovering  truth 
,  than  such  fantastical  rules  as  these;  but  if  sceptics  have  followed 
such  rules  till  they  were  weary  of  the  inconsistency  of  them,  and 
then,  to  mend  the  matter,  have  abandoned  all  human  know  ledge, 
they  are  to  be  pitied,  on  account  of  the  dismal  case  into  which  they 
have  fallen,  and  to  be  blamed  for  leaving  the  sure  path  of  reason 
and  revelation,  to  pursue  the  bewildering  dictates  of  passion  an4 
prejudice,  or  the  airy  flights  of  conjecture  and  imagination. 

But  how  are  these  inconsistencies  to  be  avoided?  There  is  only 
one  way  to  avoid  them,  and  tliat  is  a  very  plain  way;  it  is,  to  re- 
ject both  those  rules  of  judging; — to  consider  the  mere  circum- 
stance of  our  having  received  a  doctrine  from  our  parents  and 
'  teachei's,  as  being  no  sign  of  either  truth  or  falsehood: — and  to 
bring  such  doctrines  to  the  proper  test  of  evidence,  as  well  as  all 
others. 

2d.  Another  rule,  nearly  related  to  the  foregoing,  is,  "to  receive 
a  doctrine  for  true,  merely  because  it  is  believed  by  the  majority, 
or  at  least,  has  a  great  many  votaries  on  its  side." 

When  we  have  immediate  conviction  that  a  certain  truth  is 
self-evident,  we  mayjustly  appeal  to  the  universal  judgment  of 
mankind  a5  a  proof  of  its  being  an  original  dictate  of  our  faculties; 
the  real  existence  of  a  material  world  for  example:  but  if  we  per- 
ceive no  evidence  of  itfrom  intuitive  conviction, from  reason  or  reve- 
lation, the  number  of  votes  in  its  favour  ought  to  go  for  nothing; 
because  this  rule  would  lead  us  into  the  same  contradictions  men- 
tioned above. 

It  is  now  a  pretty  general  belief  in  the  world,  and  was  once 
almost  universal,  that  there  are  scores  and  hundreds  of  gods  in 
this  universe;  and  if  the  truth  is  to  be  decided  by  vote,  I  suspect 
our  heathen  neighbours  will  still  have  the  majority.  Papists 
make  great  use  of  this  argument,  and  we  cannot  blame  them  much, 
when  we  consider  that  they  have  no  better;  but  they  would  do 
well  to  consider,  that  if  a  musselman,  or  a  worshipper  of  the 
great  goddess  Diana,  should  chance  to  get  hold  of  their  mighty 
argument,  he  would  be  able  to  turn  it  against  themselves,  and  to 
shake  the  infallible  church  to  her  centre. 

It  is  pleasant  to  observe  with  what  address  Demetrius,  the  Ephe- 
«iaH  silversmith,  made  use  of  this  mode  of  reasoning.  «  He  call- 


104  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ed  together  the  workmen  of  like  occupation,  and  said,  "sirs,  ye 
know  that  by  this  craft  Ave  have  our  wealth:  moreover,  ye  see  and 
hear,  that  not  alone  at  Ephesus,  but  almost  throughout  all  Asia, 
this  Paul  hath  persuaded  and  turned  away  much  people,  saying 
that  they  be  no  gods  which  are  made  with  hands;  so  that  not  only 
this  our  craft  is  in  danger  to  be  set  at  nought,  but  also,  that  the 
temple  of  the  great  goddess  Diana  should  be  despised,  and  her 
magnificence  should  be  destroyed,  whom  all  Asia  and  the  world 
worshippeth.^^     Acts,  xix.  25. 

Thus,  we  see  the  old  gentleman  founded  his  eloquent  harrangue 
upon  three  very  popular  topics;  first,  our  craft  is  in  danger;  se- 
condly, the  magnijlcence  of  the  great  goddess:  and  thirdly,  she 
had  numbers  on  her  side;  "  whom  all  Asia  and  the  world  wor- 
shippeth."  These  arguments  did  not  die  with  Demetrius:  they  have 
descended  from  one  generation  to  another,  and  our  fathers  have 
found  them  to  be  very  convenient  engines  incases  of  necessity. 
But  blessed  be  God,  a  few  have  been  found  in  all  ages,  bold  enough 
to  look  around,  and  ask, whether  craft,  magnificeyipe,  and  votes  are 
the  method  or  rule  of  evidence,  by  which  reasonable  beings  are  to 
distinguish  between  truth  and  falsehood? 

The  same  opinion  which  has  the  majority  in  one  age,  falls  into 
the  minority  in  another:  and  thus  the  present  rule,  like  the  for- 
mer, causes  truth  to  change  with  the  opinions  of  men,  and  the 
same  thing  that  is  true  at  this  time,  will  be  deemed  a  falsehood 
whenever  it  has  the  misfortune  to  be  neglected  and  fall  into  the 
minority.  And  if  we  turn  about  and  say,  "  that  is  certainly  the 
truth  which  is  believed  by  a  few,"  the  matter  remains  the  same; 
that  which  is  believed  by  few  at  one  time,  is  believed  by  many  at 
another,  and  thus  we  would  make  truth  change  as  often  as  a  new 
whim  rises  up  to  alter  the  fashion.  For  it  is  a  lamentable  fact, 
that  books  are  read  and  doctrines  believed  by  thousands,  for  no 
atherreason  but  because  they  are  fashionable;  and  as  the  fashion  of 
a  man's  coat  or  a  woman's  head-dress  is  altered,  perhaps  seven 
times  in  a  few  years,  is  it  wonderful  that  opinions  should  often  rise 
ftnd  fall,  with  those  who  are  disposed  to  regulate  their  belief  by  the 
same  rule  which  produces  so  many  revolutions  in  their  apparel? 

3d.  Perhaps  we  shall  have  better  success,  if  we  take  for  our 
rule  of  judgment,  the  infancy  or  old  age  of  our  doctrines:  "That 
doctrine  is  certainly  true"  will  one  say,  "which  is  old  and  of  long 
standing  in  the  world." 

This  principle  has  afforded  another  argument,  which  has  also 
t>een  much  wanted,  tind  often  resorted  to,  by  tlie  advocates  of  St, 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  109 

Peter's  chair.  The  holy  Roman  church,  they  say,  has  heen  stand- 
ing for  more  than  a  thousand  years;  whereas  the  protestants 
sprang  up,  as  it  were  but  yesterday,  and  invented  their  heresies  in 
the  days  of  Martin  Luther. 

If  a  doctrine  be  false  because  it  is  new  in  the  world,  then  the 
popish  doctrine  was  once  false,  because  it  once  was  new:  this  they 
cannot  deny,  unless  they  can  make  it  appear  that  the  secrets  of 
purgatory  were  discovered  and  believed  by  mankind  from  eternity. 
And  if  popery  be  true  because  it  is  more  than  a  thousand  years 
old,  then  the  protestant  doctrines,  when  another  thousand  years 
shall  be  fulfilled,  w  ill  also  be  true  for  the  same  reason.  Thus  it 
appears  that  any  falsehood  may  spring  up,  and  will  gradually 
change  into  truth  by  the  lapse  of  ages.  At  first  it  is  a  most  bitter 
falsehood:  but  a  few  centuries  will  expunge  its  bad  qualities,  and, 
like  tobacco  or  wine,  it  grows  better  every  year. 

I  fear  my  freedom  of  speech  will  give  offence,  which  I  would 
wish  to  avoid,  and  I  shall  probably  be  reminded  that  it  ill  becomes 
me  to  allow  myself  in  these  intolerable  levities,  when  speaking 
upon  subjects  of  such  importance;  but  if  I  were  hindered  from 
indulging  a  little  pleasantry,  when  beset  with  such  ridiculous  ar- 
guments, I  am  afraid  I  should  lose  my  temper  and  get  angry  at 
them,  which  would  be  a  great  deal  worse. 

The  old  Pharisees  made  great  use  of  this  kind  of  logic  against 
the  Redeemer  of  mankind;  and  who  can  blame  them,  if  this  be  in 
deed  the  rule  by  svhich  the  Creator  would  have  his  reasonable  crea- 
tures to  judge?  "  We  are  Moses'  diciples,"  say  they;  -'  we  know 
that  God  spake  unto  Moses,  for  his  religion  was  of  ancient  date, 
but  as  for  this  fellow,  we  know  not  whence  he  is.  Is  not  this  the 
carpenter's  son.^  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth? 
Give  God  the  praise,  we  know  that  this  man  is  a  sinner." 

If  we  should  go  to  Ephesus,  or  to  some  other  heathen  country, 
and  find  another  Demetrius  making  silver  shrines  for  the  goddess 
Diana,  he  would  be  able  to  stand  his  ground  against  the  whole  of 
us.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  atheism  itself,  which  appears  to 
have  been  professed  in  our  Saviour's  time,  and  probably  for  a 
long  time  before  he  appeared  upon  earth?  Have  not  atheists  a 
right  to  plead  the  venerable  antiquity  of  their  doctrine  as  well  as 
we?  or  does  a  good  argument,  used  by  a  divine,  become  a  sophism 
when  it  falls  into  the  hands  of  infidels? 

.  But  the  truth  is,  infidels  are  not  very  fond  of  the  argument  ia 
this  form,  because  priests  can  use  it  as  well  as  they;  let  it  be  turn- 
ed topsyturvy,  and  they  uot  only  use  it  with  great  fondness,  birt 


lOti  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

claim  it  as  theirs  exclusively.  Their  maxim  is,  that  those  dogmas 
and  arguments,  which  are  as  old  as  the  world,  are  not  to  deceive  a 
philosopher:  he  knows  the  trutli  lies  in  the  new  ideas,  and  new  dis- 
coveries of  scientific  geniuses,  who  have  happily  escaped  from  the 
shackles  of  priest-craft,  by  the  irradiations  of  science. 

But  if  an  argument  or  a  truth  be  considered  to  diminish  in  its 
value  by  age,  the  conclusion  still  follows,  that  truth  may  gradual- 
ly degenerate  into  falsehood,  and  reason  into  sophistry.  And  if 
the  late  discoveries  of  our  philosophers  be  true,  they  only  claim 
this  character,  it  seems,  by  the  novelty  of  their  appearance,  or  the 
short  duration  they  have  had  as  ideas  in  the  human  brain;  and 
they  too,  in  their  turn,  must  degenerate  into  falsehood  and  sophis- 
try by  the  lapse  of  ages.  The  transubstantiating  principle  is  the 
9ame  in  both  cases,  as  to  the  real  change  produced;  only  the  Pa- 
pists appear  to  think  time  has  a  purifying  quality,  and  transforms 
falsehood  inio  truth;  whereas  the  latter  maxim  supposes  it  to  have 
a  degenerating  quality,  so  that  all  the  value  of  an  old  truth,  or  aa 
old  argument,  is  entirely  gone,  and  grown  out  of  date. 

4th.  Another  rule  of  judgment  is  the  following:  "It  is  a  sure 
sign  of  the  truth  of  any  doctrine,  when  it  is  confidently  be- 
lieved and  taught  by  persons  of  high  rank  and  dignity,  or  in  other 
word?,  w  hen  it  is  believed  by  a  great  general,  statesman,  philoso- 
pher, or  doctor  of  divinity. 

This  maxim  deserves  a  more  particular  examination  than  th« 
preceding,  because,  in  a  limited  degree,  it  ought  to  have  an  influ- 
ence  upon  our  judgment;  but  this  degree  must  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  its  false  application. 

When  men  of  understanding  and  habitual  meditation  give  their 
judgment  or  opinion,  in  matters  they  have  been  long  conversant 
with,  some  degree  of  credit  is  unquestionably  due  to  their  autho- 
rity, especially  where  a  numberof  them,  of  the  same  profession, 
agree  in  theirjudgraent:  and  it  is  a  matterof  no  small  consequence 
to  form  a  correct  view  of  the  degree  of  credit  that  is  due,  that  we 
may  not  follow  them  with  a  blind  and  implicit  confidence,  on  the 
one  hand,  or  foolishly  deprive  ourselves  of  their  assistance  on  the 
other. 

Let  me  suppose  an  astronomer,  who  is  known  to  be  a  person  of 
experience  and  regular  thinking,  advances  a  certain  matter  as  Iiis 
decided  opinion,  of  wliich  I  know  nothing,  and  have  never  had 
any  evidence  for  or  against  it:  he  offers  no  argument  to  prove  it  to 
me,  but  merely  tells  me  he  believes  it,  and  thinks  he  has  good  evir 
dence. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATIO.V.  107 

Ought  I  to  receive  it  for  certain,  merely  because  the  ai5tronomer 
believes  it?  No.  But  still  his  authority  aftbrds  a  presumption,  or  a 
degree  of  probable  evidence  to  my  mind,  that  his  opinion  is  true. 
If  I  find  other  astronomers  are  of  the  same  judgment,  the  proba- 
bility is  increased,  and  reason  enjoins  on  me  to  give  that  credit  to 
it,  that  is  due  to  presumptive  evidence.  Suppose  the  astronomer 
asks  me  whether  I  believe  it  or  not,  what  ought  to  be  my  answer? 
I  thiuk  it  ought  to  be  this:  sir,  you  are  better  able  to  judge  of  this 
matter  than  I  am,  and  your  opinion  alone  affords  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  it  is  true;  but  though  I  gladly  pay  this  proper  de- 
ference to  your  judgment,  yet  1  must  judge  for  myself,  and  cannot 
believe  it  firmly  or  absolutely,  till  you  produce  some  evidence  to 
my  understanding  besides  that  of  your  opinion  or  authority. 

Now  it  is  evident,  while  he  offers  no  argument,  and  I  am  unable 
to  conceive  any,  1  ought  not  to  receive  it  for  a  certain  truth;  but 
while  no  evidence  appears  against  it,  I  ought  to  consider  myself 
as  being  possessed  of  probable  evidence  for  it,  and  proportion 
my  belief  accordingly. 

But  being  farther  instructed  in  such  matters,  I  begin  to  examine 
the  subject  for  myself,  and  in  the  progress  of  my  investigation,  I 
find,  or  think  I  find,  very  clear  evidence  against  the  astronomer's 
opinion.  What  now  must  I  do?  I  think  I  ought  to  suspend  my  judg- 
ment, and  suspect  it,  so  far  at  least,  as  not  to  suffer  it  to  make  a 
final  decision,  till  I  have  examined  the  ground  a  second  time:  if 
the  evidence  still  appear  clear  against  him,  let  me  lay  it  before 
some  of  my  most  impartial  and  judicious  friends,  who  are  compe- 
tent to  judge  in  the  case,  to  see  if  it  will  carry  the  same  conviction 
to  their  minds  that  it  does  to  my  own:  if  they  perceive  the  force 
of  it,  as  well  as  myself,  I  am  warranted  in  believing  firmly  that  the 
astronomer  was  in  an  error;  stili  however,  retaining  a  cheerful  rea- 
diness to  receive  new  light  from  any  quarter.  If  my  friends  hesi- 
tate concerning  the  evidence  I  offer,  and  seem  doubtful  of  its  cer- 
tainty, I  ought  to  go  and  review  the  ground  a  third  time,  with  the 
utmost  care  and  attention;  and  if  I  discover  that  1  have  been  mista- 
ken, I  ought  immediately  to  yield  to  conviction;  but  if  every  suc- 
ceeding view  of  the  subject  should  still  increase  the  evidence  to  my 
mind,the  Almighty  God  will  approve  me  in  using  ray  own  judgment, 
independently  of  all  authority  upon  earth:  and  1  cannot  abandon  it, 
and  regulate  my  belitf  merely  by  the  opinions  ofother  men,  without 
being  a  sinner,  and  a  positive  enemy  to  truth.  For  it  were  to  es- 
pouse the  supposition,  that  a  man  oughtto  regulate  his  belief  by  the 
opinion  of  others  regardless  of  any  other  evidencs.  All  ether  men 


108  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

have  a  right  to  aet  upon  the  same  rule,  and  thus  tlie  examination 
of  evidence  may  be  neglected  entirely,  and  men  of  high  rank  and 
character  may  give  tone  to  the  opinions  of  the  world,  just  as  they 
give  tone  to  the  fashions  of  dress  and  politeness,  which  are  chang- 
ing every  year. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  it  is  not  only  our  right,  but  our  sacred  du- 
ty to  think  and  judge  each  one  for  himself,  by  those  methods  and 
rules  of  judgment,  which  God  has  appointed  to  direct  his  intelli- 
gent creatures  to  truth  and  happiness.  And  if  I  pay  that  deference 
to  the  judgment  of  others,  which  is  properly  due,  and  no  more,  if 
will  lead  me  to  examine  the  matter  more  closely  than  otherwise; 
whereas  some  divines  and  philosophers,  I  fear,  have  thought  a  de- 
ference should  be  paid  them,  of  a  directly  opposite  tendency:  in- 
stead of  being  influenced  by  their  authority  to  examine  the  matter 
with  more  attention  and  deliberation,  before  we  form  a  final  judg- 
ment, they  would  have  us  give  less  attention  on  this  account,  and 
not  presume  to  press  the  enquiry  any  further,  after  we  know  their 
mind  and  pleasure;  but  to  take  for  granted  at  once  that  the  thing  is 
true,  solely  because  they  believe  it;  and  let  their  dignity  as  philo- 
sophers and  doctors  of  divinity  supply  the  place  of  every  other 
argument. 

The  popish  doctors,  it  appears,  make  this  profession  openly,  and 
in  the  face  of  heaven:  they  would  have  us  understand  that  their 
infallible  authority  is  the  only  rule  by  which  we  should  regulate 
all  our  opinions:  and  it  is  truly  surprising  that  they  have  been 
able  to  carry  their  project  to  such  a  height,  and  that  the  world 
has  been  so  befooled  by  their  ingenious  craft.  But  it  shows 
the  great  weakness  of  human  nature,  and  evinces  our  ridi- 
culous propensities  to  gaze  after  any  leader,  that  has  cunning 
enough  to  assume  some  kind  of  dignity  and  grandeur  above  his 
fellows.  It  is  a  plain  proof  of  our  natural  inclination  to  idola- 
try; and  it  went  so  far  among  some  of  the  heathens,  that  the  rab- 
ble not  only  yielded  a  blind  submission  to  their  sages  and  heroes, 
while  they  lived,  but  adored  them  as  deities  after  they  were  dead. 

Deists,  it  is  true,  do  not  make  such  an  open  claim  to  these  sin- 
gular prerogatives,  as  those  of  the  sacred  and  holy  order;  but 
they  seem  very  willing  to  avail  themselves  of  the  common  preju- 
dice, whenever  it  can  be  done  in  a  way  that  will  save  appearances, 
after  all  the  comphiints  they  have  uttered  against  priestly  authori- 
ty. They  pretend  tliat  all  men  of  genius  and  liberal  thinking  are 
on  their  side;  and  they  make  almost  as  great  a  stir  about  the  irra- 
diations of  science  and  philosophy,  as  the  priests  did  about  their 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  109 

sanctified  divinity.  Paine  has  informed  the  world  that  the  pro- 
gressive improvement  of  the  sciences  will  regularly  discredit  the 
christian  faith;  and  has  affirmed  or  insinuated,  very  gravely,  that 
if  men  in  general  could  be  brought  to  understand  philosophy,  they 
would  see  clearly  that  the  christian  religion  is  contrary  to  the 
true  word  of  God,  which  "is  the  creation  we  behold."  And  as  the 
people  in  general  could  never  see  this  mighty  evidence,  for  want 
of  a  proper  knowledge  of  science,  he  doubtless  hoped  that  they 
would  take  it  for  granted  upon  the  authority  of  a  philosopher. 

Are  deists  willing,  let  me  ask,  that  every  man  should  think 
for  himself,  and  pay  no  more  blind  reverence  to  philosophers  than 
to  divines.''  Are  they  willing  for  us  to  examine  and  expose  the  hy- 
potheses of  a  Gibbon,  or  a  Hume,  with  the  same  freedom  and  inde- 
pendence, which  they  would  allow  us  to  use  when  exposing  those 
of  a  popish  Bellarmine.^  Are  they  willing  we  should  examine  ideas 
in  the  brain,  as  the  only  subject  of  human  knowledge,  and  use  the 
strong  weapons  of  common  sense  against  this  venerable  hypothe- 
sis, which  has  more  antiquity  to  plead  in  its  favour  than  evea 
popery  itseU?  If  not,  they  show  their  near  relationship  to  his  ho- 
liness in  St.  Peter's  chair,  and  need  no  longer  complain  of  the 
craft  of  priests,  in  imposing  their  dignitied  authority  upon  the  su- 
perstitious vulgar;  for  it  seems  they  are  very  ready  to  use  the 
same  craft,  and  avail  themselves  of  the  same  superstitious  weak- 
ness of  the  people,  whenever  it  may  suit  their  convenience. 

I  have  several  times  thought,  that  I  shall  have  the  mortification 
to  pass  among  philosophers  as  a  dogmatical  and  vulgar  enthusiast; 
and  among  divines,  as  a  pompous  and  self-sufficient  heretic;  but  I 
hope  a  few  friends  will  stand  by  me,  which  will  aftbrd  some  con- 
solation under  such  a  calamity.  For  you  must  know  I  am  not  so 
indifferent  to  the  opinions  of  mankind,  as  to  be  willing  to  stand 
alone  in  such  a  world  as  this.  And  it  affiards  me  unspeakable  plea- 
sure to  find  I  can  screen  myself  under  the  authority  of  a  Reid,  a 
Beatty,  and  a  Campbell,  among  philosophers;  and  under  the  au- 
thority of  a  Baxter,  a  Wesley,  a  Fletcher,  and  others,  among  di- 
vines; as  I  hope  to  make  appear  in  the  sequel. 

Not  that  I  intend  to  follow  any  one  of  these,  m  ith  a  blind  sub- 
mission, and  say  "  Thou  art  my  father  and  my  master!"  our  hea- 
venly Father  and  Master  has  taught  us  better  things,  and  we 
ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man. 

.    But  we  often  see  partialities  and  contradictions  in  men,   that 
would  be  unaccountable,  if  we  were  less   acquainted  with  human 
nature.    You  will  hear  one  person  express  his  iudignation  agaiust 
P 


no  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

the  superstitious  papists,  for  their  blind  submission  to  popes  and 
cardinals;  but  at  the  same  time,  if  you  touch  the  hypothesis  of 
Des  Cartes,  Berkley,  or  David  Hume,  Esq.  immediately  he  is  of- 
fended that  you  should  question  the  opinions  of  such  sublime  ge- 
niuses: another  smiles  at  the  blind  disciples  of  Mr.  Hume,  but  thinks 
you  a  very  bold  heretic  if  you  presume  to  question  any  thing  ad- 
vanced by  Martin  Luther  or  John  Calvin.  A  third,  is  surprised  at 
the  blindattachmentand  will-worship  ofthepoorCalviius(s,biit at 
the  same  time  considers  you  almost  a  blasphemer  against  revelation, 
if  you  dispute  the  authority  of  George  Fox,  or  Robert  Barclay.  A 
fourth  pities  the  tame  credulity  of  the  poor  infatuated  quakers,  but 
at  the  same  time  rises  with  no  inconsiderable  degree  of  zeal  and  in- 
dignation, if  you  presume  to  dissent  from  any  opinion  believed  and 
taught  by  John  JFesley  und  John  Fletcher.  These  are  the  strange 
inconsistencies  of  mankind. 

But  what  is  still  more  provoking,  a  gentleman  sometimes  ap- 
pears to  be  indulged  in  the  privilege  of  becoming  dictator  general, 
and  of  governing  the  belief  of  hundreds  by  his  ii>se  dixit,  merely 
because  he  owns  a  very  large  farm,  or  lives  in  a  very  large  house, 
or  has  large  sums  of  money  in  bank.  He  was  favoured,  it  seems, 
with  a  noble  birth,  and  has  very  noble  blood,  and  therefore  w  ho  can 
doubt  his  indefeisible  right  to  controul  the  opinions  of  common 
farmers  and  mechanics,  and  to  direct  them  what  they  are  to  be- 
lieve and  what  they  are  to  disbelieve? 

His  honest  neighbours,  it  appears,  many  of  whom  in  all  likeli- 
hood, possess  more  genuine  wisdom  and  moral  worth,  than  has 
been  verified  in  his  noble  line  from  the  days  of  his  great  grand-fa- 
ther, must  prostrate  themselves  before  his  honour;-They  must  learn 
to  consider  themselves  as  a  species  of  animals  far  inferior  to  that 
of  his  wealthy  order,  and  must  settle  it  down  in  their  hearts,  that 
the  commonalty,  or  the  peasantry  are  an  order  of  beings  that  are 
to  demean  themselves  with  cringing  submission,  look  up  with 
reverence  to  their  lordly  superiors,and  tamely  yield  up  their  under- 
standings to  their  dictatorial  sway.  And  this  is  to  be  done,  not  be- 
cause their  superiors  have  any  more  common  sense  or  reason  tban 
themselves;  (for  they  sometimes  have  not  half  so  much)  but  mere- 
ly because  they  have  more  gold  and  silver,  or  because  they  are 
pleased  to  inform  the  world  that  they  have  blood  of  a  superior 
quality. 

It  is  not  easy  for  any  one  to  imagine  how  it  would  please  my 
soul  this  day,  if  I  could  persuade  all  my  vulgar  brethren,  as  we  are 
denominated,  over  the  whole  face  of  the  earth,  to  join  me  heart 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  Hi 

and  hand,  and  let  us  try  if  wc  cannot  throw  of  the  shackles  which 
this  piece  of  craft  has  east  npon  our  understandings.  Why  should 
we  abandon  the  common  dignity  of  our  nature,  and  submit  our  judg- 
ments to  be  led  by  a  master,  just  like  a  dog  or  an  ox?  If  we  have  - 
to  plough  their  fields,  and  reap  down  their  harvests,  and  thus  wear 
outourftof/iesaslheirservants;  forGod's  sake,  for  truth's  sake,  and 
for  the  hoivour  of  human  nature  let  tlie  immortal  soul  be  free!  let 
us  show  them  that  we  are  men,  and  that  we  will  think  and  judge 
for  ourselves.  They  have  not  power  to  halter  our  understandings 
without  our  own  consent:  and  when  they  cry  out,  "This  people 
which  knoweth  not  the  law  are  cursed  -  thou  wast  altogether 
born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us — Did  not  we  straitly  command  . 
you  that  ye  should  not  teach  (or  believe)  in  this  name?"  Let  us  smile 
and  imitate  the  noble  independence  of  the  apostle  Peter,  in  his  re- 
ply to  the  old  scribes  and  doctors  of  divinity: — "If  we  this  day  be 
examined  of  the  good  deed  done  to  the  impotent  man,  he  it  known 
unto  you  all,  that  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  whom 
ye  crucified,  whom  God  raised  from  the  dead,  even  by  him  doth 
this  man  stand  here  before  you  whole.  This  is  the  stone  that  was 
set  at  nought  of  you  builders,  which  has  become  the  head  of  the 
corner."  Acts,iv.  9.  And  if  they  cast  us  into  prison,  and  make  our 
feet  fast  in  the  stocks,  let  us  prove,  like  Paul  and  Silas,  that  still 
the  soul  is  free.  Let  us  never  sacrifice  truth  to  any  man's  authori- 
ty, and  the  God  of  truth  will  defend  us;  he  will  support  us  under  '^ 
every  affliction,  or  shake  the  foundation  of  the  prison  by  his  power,  i' 
and  show  thiit  his  kingdom  ruleth  over  all. 

I  must  close  this  section  by  expressing  my  sincere  respect  for 
those  in  the  higher  ranks  of  life.  There  have  been,  and  now  are, 
many  divines  and  philosophers, — many  among  the  rich  and  influ- 
ential part  of  society,  who  are  persons  of  great  respectability,  and 
1  hope  I  shall  never  be  insensible  to  their  worth.  They  are  men  of 
true  wisdom,  veracity  and  benevolence;  and  are  justly  to  be  con- 
sidered among  the  most  amiable  benefactors  of  mankind.  But  how 
agrees  this  with  the  foregoing  paragraphs?  It  agrees  very  well 
with  them.  The  persons  I  speak  of  are  not  strutting  with  pompo- 
sity about  the  world,  and  labouring  to  be  adored  as  deities,  on  ac- 
count of  their  being  divines,  philosophers,  statesmen  or  heroes; 
much  less  on  account  of  their  money  or  their  blood:  they  scorn  to 
impose  upon  the  souls  of  men  and  cause  their  understandings  tg  be- 
.come  the  dupes  of  craft  and  absurdity:  they  have  no  desire  to  put 
out  the  eyes  of  mankind,  by  taking  advantage  of  their  prejudices? 
in  order  to  make  them  their  tools  and  vassals;  nor  yet  to  cast  a 


il3      '  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

uiist  before  them,  in  order  to  secure  their  ii^norant  gaze,  and  cause 
them  to  adore  a  hero  as  a  little  god,  for  being  a  mortal  enemy  to 
human  happiness.  But  they  delight  to  use  their  time  and  talents, 
their  office,  influence  and  riches,  to  diffuse  useful  knowledge,  truth, 
virtue,  piety  and  solid  happiness  among  their  fellow-creatures. 
The  practice  of  despising  their  brethren  of  the  human  family,  be- 
cause they  happen  to  be  poor,  ignorant  or  unfortunate,  is  detestable 
ill  their  estimation.  They  glory  in  that  candour  and  benevolence? 
iii  that  love  of  truth  and  righteousness,  which  tend  to  dispel  the 
dark  mists  of  delusion,  and  to  assuage  the  miseries  of  the  human 
race.  They  consider  themselves  as  members  of  the  great  family 
of  mankind,  who  are  to  live  and  act,  not  for  themselves  alone,  but 
for  the  general  welfare.  They  are  willing  that  moral  goodness 
should  be  the  standard  of  esteem  ;  aud  while  they  delight  to  enjoy 
the  confidence  and  love  of  their  fellow-creatures,  they  are  equally 
willing  that  every  other  man  should  be  esteemed  in  proportion  to 
his  moral  worth,  whether  he  be  rich  or  poor,  learned  or  unlearned. 
In  a  word,  they  chuse  to  be  governed  by  consistency  and  reason, 
and  are  pleased  to  see  their  fellow-creatures  render  unto  God  the 
veneration  due  to  his  eternal  goodness,  as  well  as  to  see  that  they 
themselves  are  honoured,  for  exercising  a  degree  of  the  same  be- 
neficence. They  hate  the  selfish  atheism,  which  wouldleadthemto 
trample  upon  the  rights  of  others  to  build  up  their  own  fame,  and 
to  use  various  arts,  and  sometimes  very  barbarous  ones,  to  prevail 
with  men  to  adore  them  as  little  deities,  for  thousands  of  years  af- 
ter they  are  dead,  to  the  neglect  of  God  tlieir  Creator.  These  are 
the  dispositions  and  principles  of  the  men,  of  whom  I  am  speaking; 
and  for  these  reasons  1  hope  to  love  aud  esteem  them  highly  till  1 
go  down  to  the  grave. 


SECTION  IX. 

The  necessity  and  safety  of  a  diligent  pursuit  of  truth. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  false  principle  in  divinity,  that 
*'  ignorance  is  the  niolher  of  devotion.'"  If  this  principle  be  admit' 
ted,  it  ^^  ill  follow  from  it,  either  that  "  devotion  is  not  founded  in 
truth,"  or  that  the  most  successful  way  of  understanding  or  know- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  113 

ing  the  truth,  is  "  to  coutinue  in  a  state  of  ignorance."  Tlie  latter 
conclusion  appears  to  be  adopted  by  some  christians,  thona;h  thej 
are  not  fairly  willing  to  own  it;  why  else  are  we  indirectly  cau- 
tioned against  the  improvement  of  knowledge?  and  >vhy  is  a  dili- 
gent pursuit  of  truth  sometimes  represented  as  being  dangerous? 

AH  truth,  rightly  understood,  believed  and  practised,  tends  t« 
the  happiness  of  intelligent  beings.  "Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and 
the  truth  shall  make  you  free.  For  this  end  was  I  born,  and 
for  this  purpose  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  might  bear  witness 
unto  the  truth,"  says  our  benevolent  Kedecmer. 

That  one  truth  may  be  of  far  more  importance  to  us  then  ano- 
ther, is  evident;  hat  we  cannot  suppose  any  truth  is  naturally 
unfriendly  to  happiness,  without  supposing  at  the  same  time 
that  one  truth  has  a  nature  opposite  to  another,  and  in  some 
eases  falsehood  is  to  have  the  preference.  We  might  as  well  sup- 
pose  that  justice,  in  some  cases,  is  injurious,  and  that  injustice  is 
then  to  be  considered  of  superior  value. 

if  truth  uniformly  tends  to  the  happiness  of  mankind,  and  er- 
ror to  their  ur.happiness,  what  danger  can  there  be  in  a  diligent 
pursuit,  and  extensive  knowledge  of  the  truth.?  Are  men  in  dan- 
ger of  becoming  too  happy.?  or  are  we  afraid  that  too  many  delur 
sions  will  be  detected.?  Reasons  of  a  very  ditierent  kind  are  alleg- 
ed; some  of  which  are  the  following: 

First;  It  is  urged  that  men  in  general,  are  incapable  of  entering 
into  the  intricacies  of  metaphysical  reasoning:  and  it  is  essentia! 
to  their  happiness  and  safety,  not  to  meddle  w  ith  such  bewilder- 
ing speculations,  but  keep  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ.     I  answer, 

1.  It  is  true,  no  man  will  ever  gain  any  thing,  but  lose  mueh^ 
by  regularly  labouring  to  know  what  he  is  incapable  of  knowing; 
but  does  it  hence  follow  that  some  men  are  incapable  of  knowing 
any  more  than  they  know  already.?  or  that  it  is  a  hurtful  or  use- 
less thing  for  them  to  pursue  the  knowledge  they  can  acquire,  be- 
cause it  is  so,  for  them  to  try  to  know  what  they  cannot?  There  is 
not  a  man  in  the  world,  but  is  incapable  of  knowing  many  things: 
piust  we  all,  thereforcylay  by  the  pursuit  of  truth,  and  refuse  to 
improve  the  talents  we  have,  because  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  im- 
prove those  which  we  have  not.?  For  a  man  to  exercise  metaphy.* 
sical  reasonings  upon  what  he  cannot  know,  is  not  to  pursue  truth, 
but  to  build  castles  in  the  air  upon  an  hypothesis.  If  these  be 
the  "bewildering  speculations"  alluded  to,in  the  objection,  I  would 
to  God  that  all  mankind  would  avoid  them;  for  they   are  so  far 


il4  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

from  being  a  regular  road  to  truth,  that  they  have  been  the  prin- 
cipal instruaients  made  use  of  to  till  the  world  with  delusion. 

2.  For  a  man  to  neglect  that  part  of  trutli  which  is  v ithin  his 
reach,  and  conteut  himself  in  a  state  of  ignorance,  under  pretence 
that  he  may  possibly  get  bewildered  and  miss  his  way,  is  an  ab- 
surdity similar  to  that  of  a  servant,  who,  after  neglecting  his  mas- 
ter's business,  excuses  himself  by  saying,  "sir,  I  thought  if  1  went 
about  the  work  you  enjoined  on  me,  1  might  possibly  make  some 
mistakes,  and  not  do  it  exactly  right:  I  therefore  concluded  my 
wisest  and  safest  way  was  to  sit  still  and  do  nothing."  Some  sin- 
ners have  reasoned  in  this  way,  and  for  fear  they  might  miss  their 
way,  or  not  persevere  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  they  concluded 
never  to  begin!  A  person  who  confirms  himself  in  liis  ])resent  ig- 
norance by  such  pitiful  sophistry,  need  not  congratulate  himself 
Hpon  his  having  avoided  "bewildering  speculations." 

3.  As  to  our  keeping  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  if  we  fol- 
low the  plain  dictates  of  reason,  they  will  ever  keep  us  there. 
According  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel  we  are  to  give  all  dili- 
gence to  improve  our  talents,  to  know  and  obey  the  truth,  and  to 
be  always  ready  to  give  every  one  an  answer  that  asketh  us  a  rea- 
son of  the  hope  that  is  in  us:  therefore,  he  who  pleads  for  the 
neglect  of  our  understanding,  immediately  departs  from  the  very 
rule  he  had  recommended.  And  such  persons  only  pretend  to  be 
ignorant,  or  else  they  have  yet  to  learn,  that  true  reason  as 
well  as  the  gospel,  is  very  simple  in  its  nature;  and  if  they  say 
that  all  the  intricate  and  dark  philosophy  of  the  schools,  is  built 
upon  reason,  it  is  necessary  again  to  remind  them,  that  the  pope 
will,  with  equal  confidence,  declare  that  the  dark  superstitions  of 
the  Romish  religion  are  built  upon  the  bible. 

Secondly;  It  may  be  alleged  that  many  men  have  done  harm 
with  their  knowledge,  and  had  they  been  more  ignorant,  they 
would  have  been  less  wicked:  add  to  this,  that  as  the  desire  of 
knowledge  proved  fatal  to  our  first  parents,  so  it  often  does  to 
their  fallen  children:  witness  the  thousands  who  have  been  led 
to  infidelity,  if  not  to  atheism  itself,  by  their  curious  speculations 
and  insatiable  thirst  for  new  discoveries.     Answer, 

1.  That  some  men  have  done  harm  with  their  knowledge,  is 
readily  granted-,  but  have  they  not  also  used  all  the  faculties  of 
their  souls,  and  the  members  of  their  bodies,  as  instruments  of 
unrighteousness?  But  1  hope  every  one  knows  that  the  man  is 
culpable  for  all  this,  and  not  his  knowledge,  any  more  than  the 
members  of  his  body,  or  powers  of  his  mind.     Shall  we  conclud'e, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  US 

that  because  men  have  used  their  hands  to  do  a  great  deal  of  mis- 
chief, it  would  be  better  for  them  to  have  no  hands?  or  because 
they  have  more  power  to  do  harm  with  two  hands  than  with  one, 
does  it  therefore,  follow,  that  the  Creator  would  have  acted  more 
wisely,  if  he  had  given  them  one  only?  What  immense  evil  has 
been  done  in  the  world  by  means  of  iron  and  other  metals?  They 
have  been  formed  into  instruments  of  death,  to  pour  out  human 
blood  like  water.  But  shall  we  hence  infer  that  God  acted  un- 
wisely in  storing  the  earth  with  those  metals  for  the  use  of  man? 
or  that  the  proper  use  of  them  should  be  discouraged,  because 
wicked  men  will  apply  them  to  bad  purposes?  And  because 
men  have  far  more  power  to  spread  error  abroad  among  their  fel- 
low-creatures, than  they  had  when  every  copy  of  their  works 
was  written  with  a  iten,  is  it  therefore,  to  be  lamcuted  that  the 
art  of  printing  was  ever  discovered? 

2.  It  is  not  merely  the  knowledge  of  truth,  but  the  love  of  it  al- 
•  so,  that  is  to  produce  genuine  happiness  either  in  ourselves  or 
others.  It  is  truth  rightly  understood,  believed  and  used  to  the 
regulation  of  our  practice,  tbat  tends  to  the  general  welfare  of  the 
world;  and  not  barely  knowing  it  when  that  knowledge  is  only 
used  to  invent  schemes  of  v.ickedness;  otherwise  the  devil  him- 
self would  be  a  very  happy  creature;  for  I  presume  he  has  more 
knowledge  than  any  of  us. 

When  a  man  is  striving  to  increase  his  knowledge,  in  order  to 
increase  his  power  to  do  harm,  he  ouglit  indeed  to  be  discourag- 
ed, because  truth  is  not  his  olsject;  he  only  aims  to  use  it  so  fur  as 
it  can  be  abused  to  promote  his  seltish  purposes,  and  when  false- 
hood will  serve  his  turn  better,  he  gladly  embraces  it,  and  lias  no 
more  regard  for  truth  than  he  has  for  falsehood.  He  pursues 
knowledge,  as  many  deists  read  the  bible,  not  to  use  it  for  his  own 
real  advantage,  and  that  of  others;  but  to  try  if  he  cannot  destroy 
it,  and  thus  deprive  all  other  men  of  the  benetit  of  that  which  he 
himself  abhors.  Have  not  sceptics  proved  this  in  the  face  of 
heaven?  have  they  not  laboured  under  the  mask  of  love  to  science 
and  human  improvement,  to  convince  mankind  that  all  things  are 
.equally  doubtful,  and  that  we  ought  not  to  believe  any  one  thing 
rather  than  another?  Now  if  mankind  were  brought  into  this 
state,  it  is  evident  ail  knowledge  of  truth,  and  the  benefit  re- 
sulting therefrom,  would  be  totally  destroyed,  unless  they  are  plea- 
sed to  say  that  the  knowledge  of  truth  consists  in  believing  no- 
thing. Therefore,  it  is  as  impossible  for  such  a  sceptic  to  be  a 
lover  of  truth,  as  it  is  for  a  man  to  be  a  friend  to  human  happiness 
who  does  lu«  uttermost  to  banish  it  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 


116  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

And  shall  we  therefore  advise  this  person  not  to  pursae  the 
knowledge  of  (ruth?  Advise  him  rather,  not  to  pursue  the  destruc- 
Uo7iofiL  Shall  we  say  he  had  better  be  more  ignorant?  How  can 
he  be  more  ignorant,  if  he  is  now  uniible  to  distinguish  truth  from 
fiilsehood  in  any  one  tiling  in  the  UJiiverse?  To  persuade  men  there 
isdangerin  pursuing  tJie  knowledge  of  truth  too  diligently,  because 
some  persons  have  run  into  great  danger,  by  pursuing  the  destruction 
of  it,  under  p-eff'nce  of  improving  knowledge,  is  justas  ridiculous  as 
to  declare  there  is  great  danger  in  being  too  attentive  to  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  because  our  venerable  divines  of  the  dark  ages  had 
almost  banished  the  knowledge  of  it  from  the  earth,  under  pre- 
tence of  supporting, its  authority. 

The  danger  consists — not  in  our  diligence, — not  in  the  abun- 
dance of  our  knowledge, — not  in  striving  to  understand  truth  too 
perfectly  and  extensively;  but  in  those  selfish  principles  and  per- 
nicious prejudices  which  influence  us  to  conceal,  stifle,  and 
suppress  all  evidence  that  seems  to  have  a  bearing  against  our 
favourite  idols,  a^id  to  pursue  doctrines  and  defend  them,  not  be- 
cause they  are  true,  but  because  they  are  necessary  to  the  support 
of  our  party,  our  pleasure,  or  our  pride.  Candour  is  so  essential 
to  the  discovery  of  truth,  that  a  man  without  candour  will  not  on- 
ly miss  it,  but  actually  is  not  pursuing  it,  however  diligent  he 
may  be  in  the  pursuit  of  his  studies.  His  opinions  are  already 
formed,  by  the  rule  of  passion  and  prejudice,  and  he  is  labouring 
to  find  something  to  defend  them.  When  he  finds  any  thing  that 
accords  with  his  opinion,  he  receives  it  gladly  and  sets  it  ofi" to 
the  best  advantage;  but  if  evidence  appear  against  him,  however 
clear,  he  labours  to  conceal  it,  both  from  hinjseif  and  others,  and 
is  unwilling  it  should  be  brought  to  light,  for  fear  a  full  view  of 
it  would  show  where  the  trutli  was,  so  plainly,  that  it  would  be  al- 
most irresistible.  Such  a  person  is  not  pursuing  doctj'ines  because 
tliey  are  trne^  but  because  they  are  subservient  to  liis  purposes; 
and  when  error  will  serve  his  turn  to  the  best  advantage,  he  will 
love  it  so  much  better  than  truth,  that  the  clearest  evidence  will  be 
resisted  and  hated  for  its  sake. 

3.  As  to  our  First  Parents,  1  grant  the  desire  of  knowledge  was 
one  cause  of  their  apostacy;  but  was  not  the  desire  of  happiness 
another  cause?  And  is  it  then  a  just  inference  to  conclude  that  a 
diligent  pursuit  of  happiness  is  dangerous,  and  ought  to  be  dis- 
couraged? This  conclusion  must  stand  or  i'nM  with  the  one  1  am 
opposing;  and  I  presume  it  is  impossible  to  banish  knowledge  from 
the  world  without  destroying  happiness  in  the  same  proportion. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  40 

In  what  did  the  danger  or  the  fault  of  our  first  parents  consist? 
It  consisted  in  vainly  attempting  to  increase  their  knowledge  and 
their  happiness,  by  recurring  to  imaginary  means  of  obtaining 
thera,  which  God  had  never  appointed.  The  devil  formed  an  hy- 
pothesis  for  our  Mother  five,  which  she  took  for  granted,  and  made 
the  foundation  of  a  very  grand  and  interesting  system,  as  she  sup* 
posed.  The  hypothesis  was,  "  that  she  would  sustain  no  manner  of 
injury  by  partaking  of  the  fruit,  which  her  Maker  had  forbidden; 
but  that  on  the  contrary,  she  would  gain  much  wisdom  by  it,  and 
become  like  God  himself.'' 

Now  what  evidence  had  our  mother  for  this  theoretical  maxim? 
She  had  no  more  evidence  for  it,  than  she  had  that  lier  great  and 
benevolent  Creator  was  a  deceiver  and  a  liar.  But  she  rashly  ad- 
mitted it  without  evidence,  and  probably  her  imagination  was  cal*- 
i*ied  away  with  many  fantastical  conclusions,  concerning  her  fu- 
ture dignity,  happiness,  wisdom  and  divine  prerogatives,  when  she 
should  become  a  goddess,  knowing  good  and  evil.  Was  she  expos- 
ed to  danger  by  the  diligent  pursuit  of  truth?  Just  the  contrary: 
she  admitted  the  deviPs  theory,  not  from  a  diligent  examination, 
but  from  the  want  of  it:  had  she  carefully  reflected  upon  the  abun- 
dant evidence  she  had  of  the  veracity  of  Almighty  God; — that  she 
had  no  proof  against  it  but  the  bare  word  of  this  tempter; — that  in 
receiving  his  declaration,  she  must  necessarily  renounce  all  the 
evidence  she  ever  had  of  the  tender  care,  wisdom,  kindness  and 
truth  of  her  heavenly  Father: — had  she  thus  reflected,  1  say,  and 
acted  according  to  the  convictions  of  her  understanding,  the  snare 
would  have  been  effectually  broken.  But,  neglecting  to  pursue  truth 
with  diligence,  and  being  content  with  her  present  ignorance  of  the 
danger  that  threatened  her,  she  admitted  the  devil's  hypothesis 
with  very  little  hesitation,  and  thus  brought  wretchedness  and 
death  upon  herself  and  family.  And  I  am  a  little  inclined  to  think 
that  hypotheses  have  been  among  the  most  successful  engines  of 
Satan  from  that  day  to  the  present. 

4.  It  is  alleged  in  the  objection,  "that  thousands  have  been  led 
lo  deism,  if  not  to  atheism,  by  tlieir  curious  speculations  and  in- 
satiable thirst  for  new  discoveries." 

I  feel  no  hesitation  in  admitting  this  to  be  very  probable,  if  not 
oertainly  true:  and  I  am  so  far  from  fearing  it  will  militate  against 
the  conclusion  here  defended,  that  I  hope  to  make  it  appear  that  it 
destroys  the  opposite  conclusion. 

The  curious  speculations,  and  thirst  of  new  discoveries,  which 
fed  men  to  unbelief  and  scepticism,  did  not  arise  from  tha  l©Yt  of 


iia  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

truth,  nor  eonsequently  from  a  sincere  desire  to  find  itj  otherwise 
llie}  would  have  regulated  their  enquiries  by  evidence  and  by  no- 
thing else;  unless  some  one  will  be  pleased  to  assert,  that  truth  is 
discovered  and  supported  by  something  else  besides  evidence. 

1  readily  grant  (hat  it  is  possible  for  me  to  think  very  diligently, 
and  at  the  same  time,  through  a  vain  curiosity,  or  foolish  eager- 
Iiess,  I  may  expose  myself  to  great  danger,  by  running  beyond  the 
light  of  evidence,  either  to  make  a  discovery  in  less  time,  and  by  a 
shorter  process,  than  that  of  regular  and  patient  induction,  or  to  ex- 
plore and  pretend  to  account  for  things,  of  which  1  know  nothing 
at  all,  and  cannot  know,  because  they  are  beyond  the  reach  of  my 
understanding.  So  far  as  I  have  evidence,  jo  far  1  have  knowledge 
in  exact  proportion  to  it:  and  if  1  be  content  to  follow  the  evidence, 
and  aim  at  no  knowledge  but  tJiat  to  which  it  conducts  me,  by 
chaste  and  clear  comparisons  and  consequences,  (which,  by  the 
way,  is  all  the  knowledge  1  can  have)  there  is  no  manner  of  dan- 
ger ill  the  pursuit;  but  if  1  leave  the  evidence,  in  order  to  make 
greater  discoveries  than  those  to  which  it  will  lead  me,  or  to  find 
out  a  greater  number  of  them,  or  to  discover  them  sooner,  or  w  ith 
less  labour,  then  indeed  I  am  in  great  danger,  because  I  am  no  lon- 
ger in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  otherwise  1  would  not  desert  the  evi- 
dence of  it,  by  which  alone  it  can  ever  be  ascertained. 

The  love  of  truth  will  never  produce  in  me  a  desire  to  make 
any  other  discoveries  than  such  as  are  true,  and  I  shall  regard 
the  discovery  no  farther  than  I  perceive  evidence  that  it  is  true; 
otherwise  it  is  not  for  the  sake  of  truth  1  am  labouring,  but  for  the 
sake  of  something  else. 

Perhaps  I  am  very  desirous  to  obtain /trnf;  to  immortalize  my- 
self, or  at  least  my  name; — to  secure  literanj  glory  to  ray  memO' 
ry; — to  have  a  monument  built  of  wood  or  stone; — to  live  in  the 
people's  memories; — to  enjoy  immortality  from  their  breath; — 
and,  to  weoi'  a  crown  of  laurels,  for  many  ages  after  1  am  tfead. 

Now  to  accomplish  this  end,  several  things  are  essentially  ne- 
cessary. 

First:  Something  extraordinary  must  be  done.  I  must  make 
new  and  great  and  ingenious  discoveries:  there  must  also  be  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  them  to  form  w  hat  may  be  called  my  theory, — 
my  system,  that  I  may  pass  for  a  great  ^-(jw ins  and  a  philosojiher. 

Secondly:  1  must  be  very  careful  to  frame  my  discoveries  in  a 
way  that  shall  strike  in  w  ith  the  passions  and  prejudices  of  the 
people; — at  least  with  those  who  will  probably  have  the  greatest 
kaml  in  conl'crriug  literary  glory  upon  me.  iieuce,  if  1  find  evi- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  iie 

-dence  leading  me  to  conclusions  opposite  to  tlie  most  darling  sys- 
tems and  theories  injtJie  world,  especially  those  of  divines  and  phi» 
losophers,  I  mnst  immediately  reject  that  evidence,  and  give  over 
the  doctrines  to  whicli  it  leads,  otherwise  I  shall  become  vnpopU' 
/aj*,  and  the  whole  body  of  divines  and  philosopliers  will  do  their 
utmost  to  deprive  me  of  the  crown  of  laurels. 

Thirdly:  My  discoveries  must  be  sublime,  like  those  of  a  true 
genius:  they  mnst  be  far  above  common  or  vulgar  opinions,  and 
must  be  supported  in  a  manner  far  more  sublime,  than  to  be 
subject  to  the  test  of  old  worn-out  arguments,  or  to  the  vulgaf 
dictates  of  common  sense;  they  are  to  be  so  refined  and  phi- 
losophical, that  the  commonalty  and  peascmtri/,  shall  be  totally  in^ 
capable  of  understanding  any  thing  concerning  them. 

Fourthly:  They  must  have  the  appearance,  at  least,  of  great 
plausibility,  and  ingenious  reasoning;  otherwise  they  will  be  apt 
to  expose  me  instead  of  securing  my  immortality.  Suppose  then 
I  perceive  that  one  of  my  discoveries  would  be  very  unpopular, 
and  another  is  incapable  of  being  supported  by  solid  arguments: 
what  must  I  do.''  The  unpopular  discovery  must  be  abandoned 
without  farther  ceremony;  and  as  to  the  other,  though  it  cannot 
be  supported  by  any  solid  proof,  yet  there  is  one  expedient  by 
which  I  can  save  appearances,  and  secure  my  future  fame. 

Let  an  hypothesis  be  invented,  and  cautiously  guarded  against 
too  close  an  inspection,  till  the  system  be  built  upon  it,  that  the 
eyes  of  men  may  be  so  dazzled  w  ith  the  regular  deductions  and 
philosophical  appearance  of  the  superstructure,  that  their  atten- 
tion may  be  diverted  from  the  defective  and  theoretical  founda- 
tion. Care  must  be  taken  too,  that  the  hypothesis  have  some  ap- 
pearance of  plausibility:  it  must  seem  to  account  for  some  pheno- 
mena of  nature.  It  must  also  be  above  vulgar  apprehension;  so 
that  if  any  one  attempt  to  attack  it  with  the  w  capons  of  common 
sense,  the  whole  may  be  resolved  into  his  unphilosophical  igno- 
rance. Perhaps  the  brains  would  be  a  good  seat  for  the  hypothe- 
sis, \\  here  the  vulgar  are  not  very  conversant:  no  man  has  ever 
seen  his  brains,  and  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  any  person  is  so 
well  calculated  to  describe  the  images  of  them  as  a  philosopher 
1  can  decorate  the  ground-work  with  many  learned  names  which 
may  serve  the  better  to  conceal  it  from  public  notice:  I  can  treat 
in  systematical  order,  of  the  organs  of  sensation — 6f  the  animal  spi- 
rits,— of  the  optic  and  olfactory  nerves, — of  the  pineal  gland,— * 
of  the  souVs  presence  chamber, — of  liie  ideas,  or  images  of  sound — 
and  how  they  travel  through  the  air,  enter  my  ear  and  progress 


120  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

througb  the  organs  till  they  reach  the  brain,  M'liere  they  take  their 
seat,  or  are  laid  by  in  their  proper  apartments,  and  reserved  for 
future  use. 

If  a  man  should  have  the  assurance  to  rise  up,  and  declare  he 
never  saw  his  brains,  or  an  idea  in  all  the  m  orld,  and  that  he  ac- 
tually sees  his  wife  and  children  without  ever  using  ideal 
spectacles  in  his  brains, — it  is  surely  an  easy  thing  for  me  to  si- 
lence him,  "  by  telling  him  he  is  a  poor,  unphilosophical,  vulgar 
and  dogmatical  enthusiast,  that  knows  nothing  about  the  laws  of 
nature." 

Now  1  must  appeal  to  my  friendly  reader,  and  ask  two  plain  ques- 
tions. 1,  Is  it  not  possible  that  1  should  pursue  such  a  method  as  is 
hei-e  described.^  If  so,letit  be  remembered,  that  whateveris  possible 
may  be  supposed  for  the  sake  of  argument.  2.  If  I  should  pursue 
such  a  method,  w  ould  it  not  be  very  clear  that  truth  would  not  be 
my  object.^"  If  so,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  danger  of  such  a 
method  affords  no  argument  to  prove  there  is  any  danger  in  the 
practiceof  diligently  pursuing  the  knowledge  of  truth:  consequent- 
ly, for  aught  that  has  yet  appeared  to  the  contrary,  it  is  impossible 
for  knowledge  to  be  improved  too  much,  or  for  truth  to  be  pursu- 
ed with  too  much  attention,  scrutiny  and  perseverance,  while  the 
love  of  truth,  or  candour,  regulates  our  course,  w  ithout  which  the 
true  enlargement  of  human  knowledge  is  not  the  object  we  aiie 
al'ter. 


SECTION  X. 

yhe  necessity  and  safety  of  a  diligent  communication  of  truth. 

If  it  be  necessary,  safe  and  right,  for  a  man  to  pursue  truth  witli 
diligence,  because  it  naturally  tends  to  promote  human  felicity,  then 
it  is  equally  necessary,  safe  and  right,  for  him  to  communicate  the 
know  lodge  of  it  to  his  fellowrcreatures. 

Are  there  any  objections  to  this  conclusion?  There  are  several^ 
the  chief  of  which  we  will  briefly  examine. 

First:  It  may  be  said,  we  ought  to  accommodate  ourselves  to 
the  people's  ignorance;  and  if  we  attempt  to  lead  them  into  pro- 
found subjects,  which  they  are  not  able  to  bear,  we  shall  onj^y 


PLAN  6P  SALVATIQJJ'.  131 

dause  them  to  stumble  into  greater  errors,  and  they  will  be  materi- 
ally injured,  instead  of  being  benefitted  by  our  oiftciousness.  An- 
swer: 

That  caution  should  be  used  in  the  manner  of  our  communica- 
tions, is  freely  acknowledged.  A  father,  if  he  would  benefit  his 
children,  must  not  attempt  to  communicate  the  highest  branches  of 
knowledge  to  them,  until  the  knowledge  of  plainer  truths  shall 
have  given  them  a  capacity  to  receive  those  of  a  higher  order. 
Hence  our  Saviour  says,  "I  have  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but 
ye  are  not  able  to  bear  them  now.  What  I  do  thou  knowestnot 
BOW,  but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter."  And  hence  God  nursed  up  the 
ancient  Israelites,  as  children  in  a  state  of  minority:  "  The  law 
was  their  school-master,"  and  they  "  were  kept  under  tutors,  aii4 
governors  until  the  times  appointed  of  the  Father;"  and  many  great 
truths  of  the  gospel  were  hid  for  ages,  because  the  world  was  not 
then  capable  of  receiving  them. 

God,  as  thegreatfatherofmankind,knowsperfectly theircapaci- 
ty  and  state  of  mind,  and  knows  what  portion  of  truth  is  most  suita, 
kle  to  their  present  condition:  he  accordingly  gave  a  revelation,  by 
Moses,  adapted  to  the  infant  state  of  the  world,  and  made  known 
his  truth  more  fully,  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  after  his  former  dis- 
pensations had  opened  the  way  for  it,  by  maturing  the  minds  of  his 
feeble  children. 

In  like  manner,  a  minister,  or  any  other  man  who  is  about  to  ad- 
dress a  particular  assembly,  whom  he  knows  to  be  very  ignorant 
and  uninformed,  should  accommodate  himself  to  their  capacity. 
Thus  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  I  have  fed  you  with  milk, 
and  not  with  meat;  for  hitherto  ye  were  not  able  to  bear  it,  nei- 
ther yet  now  are  ye  able."  1  Cor.  iii.  2.  And  he  reproves  the  He- 
brews, because  he  had  to  use  the  same  method  with  them;  who,  had 
they  improved  upon  the  means  of  knowledge  in  their  power^ 
might  have  been  able  to  teach  others:  '•  For  when  for  the  time 
ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye  have  need  that  one  teach  you  again 
which  be  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God;  and  are  become 
such  as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of  strong  meat."  Heb.  v.  13. 

Here  he  blames  them  for  neglecting  to  improve  their  knowledge, 
and  says  expressly,  that  they  «  ought  to  teach  others  also:"  he 
therefore  enjoins  the  two  duties  for  which  I  plead:  1.  "  That  we 
ought  to  improve  our  knowledge  as  mtieh  as  possible;"  and  2, 
"That  what  we  gain  we  should  communicate  to  others,  that  they 
may  enjoy  the  benefit  as  well  as  ourselves." 


i23  AN  ESSAY  OX  THE 

When  a  man  addresses  himself  to  the  Morld,  he  ought  not  sure- 
ly to  keep  back  any  part  of  the  truth,  that  he  is  able  to  understand} 
and  to  prove  by  evidence  which  to  him  appears  satisfactory,  for 
fear  those  to  whom  he  addresses  himself  should  not  be  capable  of 
receiving  it:  for  what  could  this  arise  from  but  the  pride  and  piti- 
ful self-sufiicieney,  that  would  lead  him  to  think  no  person  in  the 
world  could  understand  the  truth  so  well  as  hiniscU?  Must  he 
eonsider  mankind  as  his  chiMreu,  and  thus  put  himself  in  the  place 
of  God?  And  suppose  some  should  be  unable  to  enter  into  the  sub- 
ject, must  it  be  kept  back  on  this  account?  If  so,  it  would  appear, 
that  a  considerable  part  of  the  scriptures  should  have  been  kept 
hack;  for  "  our  beloved  brother  Paul,  according  to  the  wisdom  gi- 
ven unto  him,  hath  written  some  things  hard  to  be  understood, 
■which  the  ignorant  and  unlearned  wrest,  as  Ihey  do  also  the  other 
scriptures,  even  to  their  own  destruction." 

Had  those  ignorant  people  improved  their  understanding,  by 
proper  attention  to  truths  within  their  reach,  they  might  have  be- 
come sufficiently  learned,  to  have  understood  the  deep  things 
which  the  apostle  wrote,  or  at  least  to  have  avoided  stumbling  at 
them;  but  I  suspect  they  were  too  indolent  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing of  those  things,  by  the  slow  method  of  regular  improve- 
ment in  knowledge:  they  probably  formed  some  hypothesis  to  help 
them  to  the  understanding  of  Paul's  writings  in  a  shorter  way, 
and  without  much  labour;  and  hence  they  ivrested  them  to  their  own 
destruction. 

Secondly:  It  may  be  alleged,  that  we  ought  to  accommodate  our- 
selves to  the  prejudices  of  mankind,  and  not  advance  doctrines, 
however  true,  against  which  there  are  strong  and  general  prepos- 
sessions, lest  we  drive  people  still  farther  from  the  truth.  Paul 
«  became  all  things  to  all  men,  that  he  might  gain  the  wore."  T© 
this  I  answer: 

1.  Paul  accommodated  himself  to  the  different  customs  and 
manners  of  the  people,  that  were  in  themselves  indirterent,  and 
walked  cautiously  and  prudently  among  them,  that  he  might  not 
exasperate  them,  or  augment  those  passions  and  prejudices  which 
his  aim  was  to  destroy;  but  he  kept  back  no  part  of  the  counsel  of 
God,  either  in  his  preaching  or  his  writings,  under  pretence  of 
submitting  to  their  prejudices. 

2.  When  our  brethren,  through  weakness  of  understanding,  are 
very  scrupulous  concerning  certain  indifferent  matters,  as  eating 
different  kinds  of  meat,  and  the  like,  we  ought  to  be  cautious  not 
tn  wound  their  weak  consciences;  but  to  accommodate  ourselves  to 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  12S 

iheir  feeble  miiuls,  till  they  be  better  informeil,  or  more  capable  of 
receiving  iustructioii. 

3.  We  ought  never  to  attack  people's  prejudices  with  the  wea- 
pons of  auger,  bitterness,  or  ammosity;  this  would  be  the  direct 
way  to  increase  them,  because  it  would  be  to  fight  delusion  on  its 
own  ground;  but  farther  accommodations  than  these  are  inadmis- 
sible;  because  ii"  the  calm  dispassionate  voice  of  reason  and  reve- 
lation is  to  be  suppressed  or  laid  aside,  on  the  ground  stated  in  the 
objection,  we  at  once  espouse  the  principle,  that  when  truth  and 
prejudice  come  into  contact  or  competition,  the  former  ought  to 
yield  to  the  latter. 

4.  if  a:<y  of  our  fellow-creatures  are  in  an  error,  and  are  wed- 
ded to  it  by  prepossession,  is  it  right  for  us  to  try  to  convince  them 
of  their  mistake,  or  is  it  really  better  for  them  to  believe  a  false- 
hvioJ  than  the  truth?  Or,  is  it  impossible  for  their  prejudices  to  be 
overcome?  If  so,  we  suppose  them  to  be  held  in  delusion  by  neces- 
sity. And  if  it  be  possible  for  their  mistake  to  be  rectified,  how 
is  this  to  be  done?  by  suppressing  the  truth  and  leaving  them  to 
hold  fiist  their  error  with  unsuspecting  confidence?  or,  by  calmly  ex- 
hibiting the  truth  before  them?  Shall  we  keep  back  the  evidence, 
because  many  will  obstinately  refuse  to  give  it  a  fair  hearing?  And 
why  not  keep  back  the  gospel  from  the  w oild  then, because  many 
will  obstinately  shut  their  eyes  against  the  light,  and  reject  the 
counsel  of  God  against  themselves? 

It  will  perhaps  be  said,  if  they  should  be  shaken  out  of  one  error, 
they  will  only  run  over  into  another,  perhaps  a  worse  one;  for 
«  Nothing  is  more  common  than  for  men  to  run  into  one  extreme  un- 
der the  plausible  pretence  of  avoiding  anotherl"  To  prevent  such 
revolutions  we  had  better  leave  the  world  and  the  church  as  it  is 
at  present. 

And  would  not  this  argument  apply  with  equal  force,  in  any  age 
since  the  world  began?  According  to  this  logic,  the  gospel  ought 
to  have  been  kept  back,  for  men  were  prone  to  extremes  in  that  age 
as  well  as  this;  and  thousands  did  in  fact,  after  renouncing  Pagan- 
ism and  embracingthe  Christian  profession,  run  into  greater  scenes 
of  darkness  than  ever,  as"  has  been  shown  inauote  fromDr.  Camp- 
bell. .Was  the  gospel  to  blame  for  this?  or  shall  wise  men  be  de- 
prived of  the  evidence  of  truth,  because  the  foolish  are  disposed  to 
cast  it  from  them  with  contempt? 

The  objection  supposes  trutii  is  not  the  tiling  that  is  to  guard 
men  from  error;  but  that  they  are  to  be  guarded  against  one  delu- 
sion, by  being  kept  ii»  another.     This  is  like  saying  to  %  man  who 


*2*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

has  fallen  into  a  dileli  on  one  side  of  a  narrow  path,  which  he  tval 
travelling  in  the  dark,  "  sir,  1  will  not  help  you  out  or  bring  a  can- 
dle to  assist  you  in  finding  your  way,  for  fear  you  will  be  so  trans- 
ported upon  your  deliverance  from  that  ditch,  that,  in  your  eager- 
ness to  avoid  it  in  future,  you  will  stagger  into  another  on  the 
other  side  of  the  road."  Would  he  take  that  man  to  be  his  friend^ 
or  believe  rather  tliat  he  intended  to  insult  him  with  such  an  abo- 
minable argument?  As  Paul  rejected  with  indignation  the  imputa- 
tion of  haviiig  said,  "  let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come;"  so  let 
Us  renounce  the  pitiful  prejudice,  that  we  ought  to  suppress  evi- 
dence, and  keep  men  in  error,  that  truth  may  prevail.  We  might 
as  well  say,  let  us  walk  in  darkness  that  light  may  come,  or  let  us 
delight  in  ignorance'  that  knowledge  may  come. 

5.  The  principle  here  opposed,  is  another  favourite  engine  of  the 
infallible  church,  and  one  which  was  a  chief  cause  of  its  rising. 
Many  of  the  heathens  were  converted  to  Christianity,  who  had  long 
heen  in  habits  of  using  many  ceremonies,  and  worshipping  many 
gods:  The  ministers  of  the  gospel  began  to  find  it  necessary,  as 
they  thought,  to  accommodate  themselves  a  little  to  the  people's 
prejudices,  lest  they  should  go  back  to  the  heathen  idolatry:  the 
pure  voice  of  reason  and  revelation  was  not  considered  sufficient 
to  guard  them  against  error;  but  they  must  be  indulged  in  a  fe\r 
small  delusions,  because  no  other  guard  was  sufficient  to  keep 
them  from  falling  into  greater  ones:  thus  they  were  led  on  from 
one  degree  to  another,  by  this  accommodating  plan,  till  the  most 
enormous  string  of  absurd  ceremonies  were  invented  that  the  world 
has  ever  beheld;  saints  by  hundreds  were  canonized  and  worship- 
ped; pictures  and  images  by  thousands  were  exalted  to  the  sam« 
dignity,  and  a  cloud  of  darkness  and  barbarity  overspread  the 
world,  until  truth  was  fallen  in  the  streets;  justice  and  mercy 
abandoned  the  dismal  plains  of  Europe,  and  humanity  shuddered 
to  behold  the  scene. 

Thirdly:  It  may  be  objected;  that  we  ought  to  be  very  cautious 
lest  we  stir  up  a  spirit  of  controversy,  and  enlarge  the  divisions  of 
mankind,  instead  of  healing  them.     Answer: 

1.  If  by  contruversij,  Ave  are  to  understand  a  calm  and  dispas- 
sionate exercise  of  reason  and  scriptural  argument  to  lead  one 
another  into  truth,  I  confess,  1  can  see  no  danger  in  its  being  stir- 
red up.  Our  Saviour  was  employed  in  regular  argument,  almost 
through  the  whole  course  of  his  ministry;  "  and  Paul,  as  his  man- 
ner was,  went  in  unto  them,  and  three  sabbath  days  reasoned  witk 
them  out  of  the  scriptures."  Acts,  xvii.  2.    «  Aud  agaiu  as  he 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  125 

reasoned  of  righteousness,  temperance,  and  a  judgment  to  come, 
Felix  trembled."  Acts,  xxiv.  25. 

If  such  controversy  as  this  is  to  be  considered  as  an  evil  that 
ought  to  be  avoided,  it  is  a  little  surpnsing  that  the  Redeemer 
should  set  us  the  example, — that  Paul  should  be  in  the  regular  ha- 
bit of  doing  it  on  the  sabbath  day,  and  that  his  arguments  should 
be  so  successful  as  to  be  instrumental  in  the  conversion  of  thou- 
sands, and  even  bring  Felix  himself  to  tremble. 

2.  But  if  angry  and  revengeful  arguments  be  the  only  kind  ob- 
jected to,  1  readily  acknowledge  that  truth  needs  not  such  weapons, 
and  nothing  but  error  can  receive  advantage  by  such  a  malevolent 
controversy.  That  we  ought  to  guard  against  it,  both  in  ourselves 
and  others,  is  also  admitted,  without  hesitation;  and  1  suppose 
everyone  will  allow,  that  the  most  direct  way  to  stir  it  up  in  others, 
is  to  make  use  of  it  ourselves.  How  then  is  it  to  be  avoided.^  There 
are  only  two  ways  that  I  can  conceive;  and  it  will  be  worth  while 
to  inquire  which  will  be  the  more  likely  to  accomplish  the  end. 
One  is,  "  to  keep  ourselves  in  profound  silence,  and  not  attempt  to 
prove  any  thing;  the  other,  is  to  subdue  those  passions  and  preju- 
dices in  ourselves,  which  give  rise  to  angry  controversies,  and  do 
our  utmost  to  persuade  other  men  to  subdue  them,  and  follow  the 
dictates  of  reason  and  revelation." 

As  to  the  first  rule,  it  appears  at  first  view  as  though  it  would 
be  successful;  for  if  a  profound  silence  be  maintained,  if  no  person 
be  opposed  in  any  sentiment  which  he  holds,  what  ground  can  there 
be  for  controversy?  Even  the  thousands  of  heretics  that  were 
burnt  at  the  stake,  might  have  been  spared,  had  they  quietly  held 
their  peace;  but  they  would  indulge  themselves  in  their  carnal 
reasonings  sometimes;  and  lest  they  should  stir  up  a  spirit  of  con- 
troversy, the  holy  mother  in  her  prudence  burnt  them  to  death, 
and  thus  put  them  out  of  the  way. 

But  though  upon  a  superficial  view  we  may  think  contentions 
and  divisions  would  be  prevented  by  silencing  the  voice  of  reason, 
yet  matter  of  fact  proves  the  contrary:  bitter  controversies  and  di- 
visions arise  not  from  the  exercise  of  reason,  but  from  the  want  of 
it:  they  rise,  from  those  passions  and  prejudices,  which  if  let  alone, 
will  break  out  among  themselves,  and  "set  on  tire  the  course  of 
nature,  and  it  is  set  on  fire  of  hell."  If  a  party  be  united  together 
under  the  influence  of  error  and  prejudice,  they  will  indeed  fight 
vigorously  against  truth  and  evidence,  and  while  the  attack  con- 
tinues they  will  adhere  to  one  another  in  the  opposition;  but  sup- 
posing truth  should  withdraw  her  artillery,  to  accomaiodate  her- 
R 


436  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

self  to  their  prejudices,  would  contention  be  thereby  prevented? 
not  at  all:  the  combatants  would  look  about  them  for  a  while,  and 
finding  no  other  enemy,  would  fall  out  among  themselves,  aud  in- 
dulge those  furious  passions  which  can  never  be  kept  long  quiet, 
until  they  are  subdued. 

There  is  ho  manner  of  danger  in  a  regular  argument  between 
two  men,  or  two  thousand  of  them,  while  the  love  of  truth  is  the 
governing  principle  on  both  sides:  because,  while  this  is  the  case, 
each  party  rejoices  to  perceive  good  evidence  from  any  quarter, 
seeing  it  tends  to  the  support  of  that  which  he  loves.  If  his  oppo- 
nents should,  by  solid  arguments,  convince  him  that  he  has  been  in 
an  error,  he  will  no, more  be  oflended  at  his  friend,  for  this  piece  of 
kindness,  than  he  would  be  oflended  at  a  physician,  for  improving 
his  sight,  by  removing  an  obstruction  from  one  of  his  eyes. 

And  suppose  prejudice  should  rise  in  arms  against  the  truth, 
however  calmly  the  evidence  be  exhibited;  what  thcn.^  Must  truth 
and  reason  give  way  at  once,  out  of  mere  complaisance  to  delusion 
and  malevolence?  Must  all  reasonable  men  be  prevented  from 
speaking  the  truth,  or  hearing  it,  for  fear  madam  Prejudice  should  - 
be  offended.^  Though  a  dreadful  dust  would  be  raised  on  one  side, 
in  such  a  controversy;  yet,  while  the  others  keep  to  the  proper  wea- 
pons of  truth,  and  use  no  others,  thousands  of  reasonable  men 
would  yield  themselves  willing  captives,  and  would  follow  the 
transporting  rays  of  evidence,  notwithstanding  all  the  dust  that 
might  be  raised  to  conceal  it  from  their  view:  and  for  us  to  si- 
lence the  voice  of  reason,  and  omit  a  diligent  investigation  of 
truth,  for  fear  prejudiced  minds  should  stumble  at  it,  or  be  roused 
to  violent  opposition,  is  just  as  ridiculous  as  to  relinquish  all 
right  to  stem  the  torrent  of  iniquity,  for  fear  many  sinners  would 
be  influenced  to  make  a  stand  against  us,  and  perhaps  become 
more  furiously  bent  upon  their  abominations  than  they  were  be- 
fore we  disturbed  their  quiet  indulgences. 

This  counterfeit  prudence  has  ever  been  hostile  to  the  interests 
of  truth,  and  has  promoted  the  most  dangerous  errors  among  man- 
kind; and  I  think  it  may  be  said,  of  all  the  false  rules  of  judg- 
ment here  examined,  as  Mr.  Fletcher  said  on  a  similar  occasion, 
«  They  were  brought  forth  in  Moses'  decayed  chair  at  Jerusa- 
lem, nursed  by  Austin,  at  Hyppo,  and  educated  by  Bellarmine,  at 
Rome," 

If  protestauts  are  resolved  still  to  hold  them  fast,  I  know  not 
how  they  could  de  it  more  consistently,  or  enjoy  them  in  more 
complete  perfection,  than  to  go  back  to  the  bosom  of  the  mother 


PLAN  OF  SALVATIOJV".  127 

church,  where  an  infallible  priesthood  can  cherish  indolence,  sup- 
port ignorance,  silence  the  voice  of  reason,  deprive  the  laitj'  of 
revelation,  and  thus  settle  all  controversies,  and  defend  her  tame 
children,  against  infidels  and  heretics,  by  the  powerful  arguments 
of  the  holy  inquisition. 


SECTION  XI. 

Whether  certain  errors  ought  to  be  believed  for  tlie  sake  of  discou^ 
raging  sin. 

It  may  be  necessary,  before  Me  leave  this  part  of  the  subject,  to 
notice  another  prejudice,  i;i  which  some  good  men  appear  to  have 
been  entangled:  It  is,  that  certain  doctrines  ought  to  be  rejected 
without  examination,  lest  the  belief  of  them  should  tend  to  encou- 
rage sin. 

This  supposes  truth  and  virtue  are  not  uniformly  connected  to- 
gether, but  that  sometimes,  or  in  some  cases,  "  delusion  will  be 
more  friendly  to  righteousness  than  a  proper  knowledge  of  truthj" 
for  if  truth  always  supports  virtue,  and  vice  versa,  the  most  ef- 
fectual way  to  discourage  sin  is,  to  labour  to  banish  all  delusion 
from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

It  must  be  granted,  indeed,  not  that  the  knowledge  of  truth  tends 
to  encourage  sin,  but  that  certain  truths  presented  to  those  who 
are  incapable  of  receiving  them,  may  become  the  occasion  of 
their  stumbling  into  greater  errors,  and  those  errors  may  lead  them 
into  greater  sins;  and  in  this  case,  as  before  observed,  it  is  genuine 
benevolence  to  withhold  such  truths  from  them,  until  they  be  gra-. 
dually  prepared  to  receive  them. 

Had  the  pure  spirituality  of  the  divine  nature — of  the  Mes- 
siah's government — and  of  divine  worship,  been  revealed  to  the 
Israelites  in  the  days  of  Moses,  their  infant  minds  would  have  been 
incapable  of  such  instructions.  They  would  probably  have  conclud- 
ed that  the  God  who  spake  by  Moses,  was  attempting  to  lead  them 
into  some  strange  chimeras  which  he  did  not  understand  himself. 
That  the  Egyptian  gods  wore  far  more  intelligible  in  their  instruc- 
tions; which  they  would  consider  far  more  agreeable  than  those 
given  by  Moses,  and  which,  in  their  view,  eontaiued  far  better 


138  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

sense  and  consistency.  Such  errors  would  lead  them  back  rapiilly 
to  the  heathen  idolatry;  and  therefore,  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
God  "  hid  those  things  for  ages,"  and  did  not  make  them  known 
to  the  world,  "  till  the  fulness  of  the  time  Mas  come." 

But,  if  we  conclude  that  those  truths  liave  any  thing  in  their  na- 
ture eaUciilated  to  encourage  sin,  they  ought  to  be  hid  for  as  many 
ages  yet  to  come,  or  even  forever;  otherwise,  Ave  say  God  ought  tft 
give  a  revelation  to  encourage  sin. 

If  it  be  granted  then,  that  no  trutJi,  rightly  understood  and  be- 
lieved, will  encourage  sin;  but  that  men  take  such  encouragement, 
by  stumbling  into  error;  and  therefore,  thfit  caution  should  be  used 
to  guard  them  against  those  errors,  by  leading  them  on  in  the 
knowledge  of  truth  as  ihey  are  able  to  receive  it<  this  has  been 
Stated  and  considered  before. 

And  who  can  tell  when  the  world  is  in  a  fit  state  to  receive  certain 
truths  but  God  himself,  who  perfectly  knows  the  state  and  condi- 
tion of  our  minds?  Shall  a  man  hold  back  any  truth  from  the  world, 
which-^is  supported  by  evidence  clear  to  his  understanding,  under 
pretence  that  all  men  are  children  but  himself?  A  person  of  this 
cast  may  spare  his  prudence,  I  conjecture,  for  the  grounds  of  it  in 
this  case,  are  a  sufficient  proof  of  such  a  superiicial  degree  of 
knowledge,  that  the  world  will  not  be  apt  to  sustain  any  injury  by 
his  profound  discoveries;  npr  is  there  any  necessity  for  them  to  be 
liid  for  ages,  except  perhaps  to  save  the  credit  of  their  author. 

That  this  notion  never  prevented  sin  in  the  world,  but  that  it  is 
replete  with  dangerous  consequences,  I  think  may  be  made  very 
evident!  let  it  suftice  to  illustrate  the  subject  by  ivvo  examples. 

1.  It  has  perhaps  been  thought,  that  we  ought  not  to  teach  the 
people,  «'that  God  is  not  influenced  by  the  feelings  of  grief,  sym- 
pathy and  pity,  as  we  are,  however  clearly  it  may  be  proved,  for 
fear  it  would  lead  them  to  distrust  (iod,  to  indulge  unbelief,  and 
of  eon^equenie  to  run  into  other  sins."  To  guard  them  against 
these  evils,  we  must  leave  them  in  their  error,  because  in  this  case 
the  knowledge  of  truth  would  tend  to  their  injury. 

That  it  might  be  injuiious  for  people  to  believe  this  to  be  true, 
or  any  thing  else,  merely  upon  our  telling  them  so,  I  grant;  be- 
cause this  would  be  to  believe  without  evidence;  but  let  the  truth 
be  explained,  and  set  before  them  with  sufficient  evidence  to  carry 
conviction  to  their  understandings,  and  tlie  belief  of  it  will  do 
them  no  harm.  Letthem  understand,  that  God  gave  us  such  aftec- 
tions  tosupply  the  deficiency  of  our  moral  goodness,  and  tbat  the 
reason  we  believe   God  has  them  not,  is,  that  his  goodness  is  so 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  i^fl 

perfect  that  be  needs  no  sueh  stimulants  to  make  his  creatures 
happy;  and  this  proper  view  of  the  subject  will  never  lead  them 
to  distrust  their  Creator. 

The  opposite  error,  that  of  attributing  human  passions  to  our 
>Iaker,  is  so  far  from  being  preferable  to  the  truth,  that  it  has 
produced  the  most  dismal  consequences.  Some  have  been  led  by  it 
to  conclude,  that  after  spending  a  life  of  wickedness,  they  could 
move  the  passions  of  the  Almighty,  and  melt  him  into  pity  by  their 
tears  and  groans.  Others  have  feared  he  was  in  such  a  rage  of 
passion  against  them,  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  appease  his  fury. 
The  heathens  imagined  that  scenes  of  barbarity  would  gratify  his 
vengeance,  and  hence  they  were  led  to  burn  their  own  children  in 
(he  fire. 

2.  Some  have  appeared  to  be  suspicious  of  any  doctrines  that 
would  give  too  full  a  view  of  i\ie  kindness  or  mercy  of  God,  lest  men 
should  leap  into  presumptuous  conclusions,  and  harden  themselves 
in  their  transgressions. 

And  is  there  any  danger,  think  you,  in  believing  God  to  be  ful- 
ly as  meicifiiland  kind  as  he  actually  is,  and  can  be  proved  to  be? 
Avould  it  discourage  sin  more  eft'eetually  for  the  world  to  be  kept 
a  little  in  the  dark,  and  be  prevailed  on  to  believe  that  there  is 
some  barbarity  in  God,  in  order  for  them  to  be  restrained  by  the 
force  of  terror?  I  think  not. 

Men  are  very  apt  indeed,  to  run  into  presumptuous  conclusions, 
and  hence  to  harden  themselves  in  iniquity;  but  this  never  arises 
from  that  view  of  the  Divine  nature  which  is  according  to  truth, 
but  from  some  delusive  notion  of  it. 

One  error  is  never  to  be  cured  by  another,  and  I  presume  ag 
much  sin  has  been  produced  by  believing  God  to  be  less  merciful 
than  he  is,  as  has  been  brought  on  by  believing  him  to  be  more 
merciful  than  he  is. 

Was  any  sin  prevented  in  popish  countries,  by  believing  that  all 
infants  who  died  withoutbaptism,  were  to  be  everlastingly  damned 
in  hell?  or  that  God  was  delighted  to  see  heretics  burnt  at  the 
stake,  and  that  his  soul  will  be  gratified  to  hear  them  and  their  in- 
fant children  cry  and  groan  in  hell-flames  forever?  Was  any  sin 
ever  prevented  by  believing  that  all  heathens  are  to  be  forever 
damned,  for  not  believing  in  Jesus  Christ,  of  m  hom  they  never 
heard?  Was  any  sin  ever  prevented  by  believing  that  most  men 
.  were  ordained  to  damnation,  by  the  sovereign  pleasure  and  un- 
changeable decree  of  God  ?  No:  such  a  barbarous  divinity  is  just 
as  unfriendly  to  holiness,  as  the  loose  tenets  of  those  who  represent 


J  30  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

God  as  being  a  lover  of  sin,  or  who  believe  that  there  is  nothing 
in  his  nature  but  mercy.  And  indeed  they  meet  together  in  the 
same  point;  for  how  easy  is  it  for  those  who  believe  God  is 
possessed  of  the  evil  principles  of  injustice  and  barbarity,  to  be- 
lieve he  is  possessed  of  the  evil  principles  of  partiality  alsoP 
They  can  suppose  he  has  a  humorous  fondness  for  them,  and  thus 
indulge  themselves  in  presumptuous  sins  as  much  as  the  others. 
All  the  difterence  is,  that  the  others  suppose  God  has  this  humour- 
ous fondness  for  all  the  world,  and  they  suppose  he  has  it  for  a 
part,  among  whom  they  stand  in  the  first  rank,  or  at  least  that  they 
certainly  have  a  share  in  this  partiality,  w  hich  was  secured  by  an 
absolute  and  eternal  decree. 

And  suppose  men  were  brought  to  believe  that  God  had  no  mer- 
cy in  his  nature,  but  took  such  pleasure  in  seeing  his  creatures  in 
torment,  that  he  intended  to  send  all  men  and  angels  into  hell; 
would  sin  be  prevented  by  this?  so  far  from  it,  that  it  would  only 
produce  terror  and  dismay  for  a  little  while,  which  would  pioba- 
bly  degenerate  into  anger  and  resentment,  and  from  that  into 
atheism. 

I  pray  God  to  save  good  men  from  the  pitiful  hypothesis,  that 
there  is  danger  in  following  the  light  of  evidence  too  closely,  for 
fear  it  should  lead  us  to  some  truth  that  will  encourage  sin! 

If  any  falsehood  is  necessary  to  promote  virtue,  w  hy  not  tell 
lies  to  encourage  holiness.^  AVhy  not  deceive  the  people  for  their 
good?  AVhy  not  use  pious  frauds  to  support  religion;  or  in  plain 
English,  why  not  do  evil  that  good  may  come? 

Shall  we  keep  men  in  falsehood,  that  truth  may  prevail,  or  do 
evil;  that  good  may  come?  God  forbid.  Let  the  glorious  nature 
and  attributes  of  our  Maker  be  understood  according  to  truth,  let 
us  avoid  attributing  to  God  a  want  of  justice  and  holiness,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  believing  in  a  gloomy  and  barbarous  divinity, 
©n  the  other;  both  of  which  are  alike  unfriendly  to  virtue  and  hu- 
man happiness:  and  let  us  never  dream  that  God  is  so  destitute  of 
wisdomandgoodness,  as  to  put  certain  means  of  knowledge  within 
•ur  power,  the  diligent  use  of  which  is  dangerous,  and  may  lead  to 
conclusions  that  would  be  naturally  calculated  to  encourage  wick- 
edness. Such  inconsistencies  do  not  belong  to  God,  but  are  invent- 
ed by  the  imaginations  of  men. 

1  grant  a  doctrine  believed  without  evidence,  even  though  it 
should  happen  to  be  true,  will  be  apt  to  prove  unfriendly  to  virtue 
and  happiness;  for  if  there  be  no  proof  of  it,  that  we  are  able  to 
discover,  we  have  every  ground  to  ceusider  it  either  a  falsehood, 


PI-AN  OF  SALVATION.  131 

or  a  trutt  that  the  wisdom  of  God  has  concealed  from  mankind, 
because  they  are  not  in  a  fit  state  to  receive  it,  and  therefore,  in 
all  likelihood,  the  belief  of  it,  though  true,  would,  from  their  par- 
tial conceptions,  cause  them  to  stumble  into  some  error  which 
w  ould  lead  them  into  sin. 

For  example,  let  us  consider  the  dying  thief,  whom  our  Saviour 
pardoned  on  the  cross:  it  may  be  that  he  had  long  before  that 
time  believed  that  he  should  obtain  mercy  in  his  last  hours,  and, 
from  that  persuasion,  had  hardened  himself  in  his  ungodliness,  as 
many  have  done  in  ail  ages  of  the  world.  If  so,  the  thing  which 
he  believed  was  true,  and  came  to  pass  accordingly.  But  he  had 
no  evidence  of  its  truth,  and  therefore  must  have  believed  it  upoa 
ihe  grouud  of  ht/puthesis:  other  sinners  are  equally  destitute  of 
evidence  in  this  matter,  and  liave  an  equal  right  to  the  hypothesis; 
but  for  one  that  finds  lie  believed  the  truth,  perhaps  nine  hundred 
prove,  too  late,  that  they  believed  a  falsehood. 

iS'ow,  in  such  cases,  I  acknowledge  there  is  great  danger,  and 
the  belief  is  of  bad  tendency,  even  though  the  object  of  their  pre- 
sumption may  afterwards  be  found  to  be  true;  but  it  will  not 
hence  follow,  that  there  ever  is  danger  in  pursuing  truth  to  the 
utmost  of  our  abilities,  provided  we  believe  nothing  as  true,  but 
30  far  as  it  is  supported  by  evidence. 

The  case  under  consideration,  is  not  believing  the  thing,  on  ac- 
count of  its  having  any  sign  of  truth:  but  merely  believing  it  upon 
the  ground  of  fanciful  conjecture.  This  is  always  dangerous,  as 
I  have  attempted  to  make  appear.  Though  the  conjecture  may 
chance  to  be  true,  in  many  eases,  yet  it  is  irrational  to  believe 
it  till  we  have  evidence  of  its  truth,  and  is  as  much  a  violation  of 
the  method  which  God  has  appointed  to  govern  the  belief  of  rea- 
sonable creatures,  as  if  it  should  prove  to  be  a  falsehood.  Though 
hypotheses  may  be  formed,  as  Dr.  Reid  observes,  to  excite  inqui- 
ry, yet  nothing  but  evidence  should  govern  the  belief  of  any  man, 
if  he  would  continue  safe  and  happy,  or  even  lay  claim  to  the 
prerogatives  of  an  intelligent  being.  We  should  never  assent, 
even  with  a  doubtful  or  hesitating  faith,  until  some  grounds  of 
probability  appear;  and  after  they  do  appear,  he  should  be  still 
on  his  guard,  and  refuse  to  believe  with  firm  assurance,  while  the 
evidence  is  only  presumptive  or  probable. 

Many  arbitrary  conjectures  have  been  invented  concerning  the 
purifying  influence  of  the  fires  of  purgatory,  or  of  hell:  con- 
cerning another  state  of  probation  for  sinners,  after  death:  con- 
ceruiug  their  admittance  into  heaven,  at  the  day  of  judgment,  or 


iBJ  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

at  some  other  time:  concerning  the  nature  of  their  torment,  and 
of  their  accompanying  the  prince  ofthepoiver  of  the  air:  concern- 
ing their  future  annihilation,  and  the  like. 

Tliese  rovings  of  the  imagination  commonly  have  a  pernicious 
influence  upon  their  votaries,  and  if  the  scripture  even  said  no- 
thing against  them,  the  most  that  could  be  said  in  their  favour  is, 
that  they  are  unsupported  hypotheses;  and  therefore  ought  not  to 
govern  the  belief  of  any  thinking  man,  till  some  evidence  be  pro- 
duced of  their  reality.  I  am  apt  to  think  it  is  impossible  for  anj 
such  evidence  to  be  produced;  and  we  ought  to  be  very  cautious 
how  we  receive  such  opinions;  for  even  supposing  some  of  them 
to  be  according  to  truth,  (that  of  departed  sinners  accompanying 
Satan  upon  errands  df  mischief,  for  example,)  the  belief  of  them 
being  purely  hypothetical,  would  be  the  same  thing  as  believing 
falsehood  upon  a  similar  ground;  (seeing  both  would  be  a  depar- 
ture from  all  evidence)  and  if  any  man  should  hope  to  improve 
human  knowledge,  by  leaving  the  proper  methods  which  God  has 
vouchsafed  for  our  instruction,  to  launch  into  the  bold  and  fic- 
titious regions  of  conjecture,  let  him  look  at  the  history  of  the 
world,  from  the  days  of  Aristotle  to  those  of  Mr.  Hume,  and  let 
him  take  warning  by  the  wrecks  he  will  behold,  of  religion,  of 
happiness,  of  reason,  and  of  common  sense. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  13a 

CHAPTER  n. 

UPON  THE  NATURE  AND  GROUNDS  OF  REDEMPTION- 


SECTION   L 

Ji  view  of  the  Divine  Attributes,. 

It  is  evident  from  the  scriptures,  tliat  the  coming  of  the  Lord  o'f 
glory  to  redeem  fallen  man,  is  the  most  important  event  that  has 
occurred  since  the  beginning  of  the  world.  Christ  is  the  "foundation, 
the  chief  corner  stone  of  the  prophets  and  apostles.  He  is  the 
light  of  the  world,  and  the  life  of  men.  He  is  the  mediator  between 
God  and  man — the  friend  of  sinners,  and  the  beloved  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth.  He  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God — the 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last — and  in  him  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  God-head  bodily"  In  a  word,  he  is  the  Saviour, 
the  Governor  ^diwA  Judge,  of  the  whole  human  family,  and  will  reign 
till  all  enemies  are  sul)dued  under  his  feet.  We  all  want  to  know 
for  what  purpose  he  lived,  died,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead; 
nor  are  we  alone  in  being  thus  inquisitive,  for  these  are  "things 
which  the  angels  desire  to  look  into."  1  Pet.  i.  12. 

If  the  extent  of  this  subject  be  such  as  affords  matter  for  the  en- 
largement of  angelic  knowledge,  as  the  apostle's  words  seem  to  in- 
dicate, how  can  we  hope  to  comprehend  it  completely,  in  our  pre- 
sent state  of  being!  The  more  we  look  into,  and  understand  it, 
the  more  evidently  shall  we  behold  "the  glory  of  God,  shining  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ;"  but  never  in  this  world,  if  in  the  world 
to  come,  shall  we  be  able  to  comprehend  the  whole  extent  of  its 
influence,  or  the  immediate  connexion  between  the  cause  and  the 
effect.  The  connexion  between  cause  and  effect  is  a  mystery  in 
every  part  of  the  creation.  Even  in  vegetation,  in  the  growth  of  a 
spire  of  grass,  our  under-standings  have  limits,  beyond  which  they 
cannot  penetrate.  The  operations  of  animal  nature  are  equally 
difficult;  much  more  those  of  the  intellectual  world.  Is  it  wonder- 
ful  then  that  the  nature  of  God,  and  the  great  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion, should  contain  some  mysteries  which  we  cannot  fathom? 
^'Without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness:  God  was 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preach- 
S 


iSi  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ed  unto  the  gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into 
glory."  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 

But  though  we  cannot  comprehend  the  whole  of  our  great  Crea- 
tor's works,  either  natural  or  supernatural;  jet  he  has  given  us 
faculties  whereby  we  may  regularly  enlarge  our  knowledge,  and 
he  calls  us  to  the  exercise  of  them:  we  ought  tlierefore  "to  give  at- 
tendance to  reading,  to  exhortation,  to  doctrine.  "NVe  ought  to  me- 
ditate upon  these  things,  and  give  ourselves  wholly  to  them;  that 
our  profiting  may  appear  to  all."  1  Tim.  iv.  1.3.  15.  It  is  our  wis- 
dom, duty  and  happiness,  to  endeavour  to  understand  the  great  plan 
of  salvation  as  well  as  possible:  "  of  which  salvation  the  prophets 
have  inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of  thegrace 
that  shouUl  come  unto  you:  searching  what  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
which  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  before-hand  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow."  1  Pet.  i. 
10.  11. 

If  then  tlie  prophets,  who  were  under  the  immediate  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  found  it  necessary,  and  considered  it  laudihle, 
to  use  their  understanding  in  diligent  inquiries  and  meditations 
Hpon  the  glorious  doctrine  of  redemption;  surely  we  are  justified 
in  following  their  example,  and  I  presume  neither  prophets  nor 
apostles  will  ever  reprove  us  for  the  inquiry,  or  persuade  us  not 
to  search  too  diligently. 

The  principle  on  which  the  necessity  of  redemption  is  founded, 
is,  that  man  is  a  sinner,  faiien  and  corrupted,  and  that  God  is  not 
willing  he  should  perish;  hut  that  he  should  come  to  repentance 
and  salvation.  Man,  by  nature,  is  prone  to  evil,  and  by  practice,  has 
becom^i  a  positive  rebel.  Misery  and  death  have  become  univer- 
sal; but  an  universal  remedy  has  been  provided:  for,  "as  by  the  of- 
fence of  one,  judgment  come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even 
so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  un- 
to justification  of  life."  Rom.  5.  18.  "  For  the  creature  was  made 
siibjcct  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  hath 
subjected  the  same  in  hope:  because  the  creature  itself  also  shall 
be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liber- 
ty of  the  children  of  God."  iiom.  viii.  21.  This  glorious  deliverance 
will  be  accomplished  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "  whom  the 
heaven  must  receive  until  the  time  of  restitution  of  all  things, 
which  Gad  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets 
since  the  world  began."  Acts  iii.  21. 

As  to  ihc  particvJar  ends  for  which  our  Saviour  came  into  the 
world,  they  need  «ot  all  bo  enumerated:  sufiice  it  to  say,  he  cam* 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  133 

to  counteract  the  aecidentai  consequences  of  A(lam*si  sin  upon  the 
unsinning  part  of  the  creation,  according  to  the  above  quoted  scrip- 
tures:— he  came  to  destroy  death  by  a  general  resurrection: — "he 
came  to  fulfil  all  righteousness,  and  set  us  an  example  that  we 
should  follow  his  steps: — he  canie  to  bear  witness  unto  the  truth, 
and  to  conlirm  the  proniises  made  unto  the  fathers: — he  came  to 
teach  us  the  good  and  the  right  way,  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
poor,  and  the  opening  of  the  prison  doors  to  them  that  were  bound- 
he  came  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  and  to  reign  till  he  shall 
put  all  enemies  under  liis  feet: — he  came  to  die,  the  just  for  tlie  un- 
just, to  condemn  sin  in  (he  flesh,  to  offer  his  soul  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
that  the  world  through  him  might  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life:"  he  came  "to  give  repentance  to  Israel  and  remission  of  sins:" 
in  a  word,  he  came  "to 
ther  they  be  things  in  earth  or  things  in  Heaven!' 

But  what  was  the 
comprehends  all  the  particulars?  I  would  answer,  that  he  came  to 
make  such  an  atonement  for  sin,  as  should  glorify  God,  in  the 
grant  of  pardon  to  the  guilty,  in  relieving  the  miserable,  and  in  pro- 
curing final  salvation  for  the  chedient.  iVm  I  right  in  this  view  of  the 
subject,  or  am  I  wrong?  Wliat  saith  the  scripture?  That  Jesus  is 
exalted  to  be  a  prince  and  a  Saviour,  and  that  the  whole  of  our 
salvation  is  obtained  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  him,  is  a 
point  so  abundantly  established  throughout  all  the  scriptures,  that 
there  is  no  necessity  of  confirming  it  at  present  by  particular  proofs: 
no  man  who  believes  the  bible  w ill  pretend  to  call  it  in  question. 
And  that  he  came  to  glorify  God  in  this  salvation  of  sinners,  is  al- 
so undeniable,  from  his  own  express  declaration.  "Now  is  my  soul 
troulded;  and  what  shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour: 
hut  for  this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour.  Father,  glorify  thy  name. 
Then  came  there  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I  hava  both  glorified 
it,  and  will  glorify  it  again;'  "Jesus  said,  now  is  the  son  of  man 
glorified,  and  God  is  glorified  in  him."  John.  xiii.  27.  28. — xii.  31, 
"And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  w  ill  I  do,  that 
the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son"  John  xiv.  13.  "I  have  mani- 
fested thy  name  unto  the  men  which  thou  gavcst  me  out  of  the 
world:  1  have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth:  I  have  finished  the  work 
whichthougavestmetodo."  John,  xvii.4.  6.  "Father,the  hour  is  come: 
glorify  thy  son,  that  thy  son  also  may  glorify  thee."  ver.  1.  And 
suddenly  there  was  with  the  angel  a  multitude  of  the  heavenly 
host  praising  God,  and  saying  glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on 
':ood-willtoivardmen."jA\ke.n.  13.  14. 


136  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Thus,  it  is  evident  Jesus  came  to  make  the  salvation  of  sinners 
accord  with  the  full  glory  of  God;  and  not  as  some  wouli^  Iiave  it, 
that  he  came  merely  to  satisfy  the  divine  Justice,  as  if  the  glory 
of  God  consisted  in  this  alone.  It  is  true  he  came  to  satisfy 
justice,  because  justice  is  a  moral  attribute  of  the  Deity,  and 
must  be  gloriKed  as  well  as  his  other  perfections;  but  goodness 
and  holiness  were  no  more  satisfied  for  sinners  to  be  pardoned 
without  a  Redeemer,  than  justice  itself:  therefore,  as  redemption 
reconciles  the  salvation  of  sinners  with  the  glorious  nature  and 
attributes  of  God,  every  moral  perfection  is  alike  satisfied  and 
exalted  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

fFliat  is  meant  by  the  glory  of  God?  or,  in  what  does  his  essential 
glory  consist?  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  face  to  face,  as 
a  man  speaketh  unto  his  friend.  And  he  said,  I  beseech  thee,  show 
me  thy  glory.  And  he  said,  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  pass  be- 
fore thee,  and  I  will  proclaim  the  name  of  the  Lord  before  thee, 
8^.6.  And  the  Lord  descended  in  the  cloud,  and  stood  with  him  there 
and  proclaimed  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  the  Lord  passed  by 
before  him,  and  proclaimed,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keep- 
ing mercy  for  ihous-Ands,  forgiving  iniquity,  and  transgression, and 
sin,  and  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty."  Exod.  xxxiii.  11, 
18.  19 — xxxiv.  S,  6.  &c, 

Jlere  the  xllmighty  God  condescends  to  inform  u*  in  what  his  es- 
sential glory  consists;  first,  in  goodness  under  its  various  forms  of 
grace,  mercy  and  long-sufferivg:  secpnd,  in  truth,  and  the  third  in 
justice:  that  will  by  no  meaijs  clear  the  guilty. 

There  is  one  thing  in  this  passage  deserving  very  particular  at- 
tention: after  proclaiming  his  goodness  in  various  forms  of  expres- 
sion, and  decla,ring  heforgiveth  iniquity,  and  transgression,  and 
sin,  God  immediately  adds,  "that  he  will  by  no  means  clear  the 
guilty."  Is  not  here  the  appeara?iee  of  a  contradiction.?  that  he 
Tf'i// forgive  sin,  and  that  he  Mill  not  forgive  it  at  the  same  time.? 
Answer:  it  is  said  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner  that  he  tvill 
forgive;  but  it  is  not  said  he  will  not  forgive;  but  that  he  will  by 
no  means  clear  the  guilty;  that  is,  he  will  not  excuse  the  guilty,  or 
grant  them  any  legal  discharge  from  the  penalty,  by  constituting 
them  innocent.  If  they  would  obtain  deliverance  from  punishment, 
it  must  be  by  his  goodness  granting  a  free  pardon,  because  no 
other  kind  of  a  discharge  will  ever  accord  with  his  nature  and 
government.  There  are  ceitain  means  through  which  he  will  par- 
don the  guilty,  but  he  will  by  no  means  clear  them  any  other  way, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  137 

not  even  by  the  means  of  redemption;  for  I  think  we  shall  find  it 
was  no  part  of  our  Saviour's  design  to  exonerate  sinners  from 
guilt,  by  constituting  them  innocent,  hut  to  introduce  them  to  a 
throne  of  mercy,  as  guilty  rebels,  that  divine  goodncs  may  forgive 
them.  Some  suppose  God  will  clear  the  guilty,  or  constitute  them 
innocent,  by  means  of  a  certain  imputation;  but  God  himself  de- 
clares, he  will  by  no  means  do  it;  because  he  has  determined  tliey 
shall  be  delivered  from  the  penalty  no  other  way  but  by  his 
"goodness,  forgiving  iniquity,  and  transgression,  and  sin."  This 
shall  afterAvards  be  considered  more  particularly. 

Again,  we  learn  that  the  Lord  is  glorious  in  holiness.  "Give  un- 
to the  Lord  the  glory  due  unto  his  name:  worship  the  Lord  in 
the  beauty  of  holiness."  And  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which 
after  God  is  created  in  rightemisness  and  true  holiness.'^  Psalm 
xxix.  2.  Eph.  iv.  24. 

We  learn  farther  that  ^'justice  and  judgment  are  the  habita- 
'  tion  of  thy  throne:  merci/  and  truth  shall  go  before  thy  face."  "I 
will  speak  of  the  glorious  honor  of  thy  majesty,  and  thy  won- 
drous works.  The  Lord  is  gracious,  and  full  of  compassion,  slow 
to  anger,  and  of  great  mercy.  The  Lord  is  righteous  in  all  his  ways 
and  holy  in  all  his  works,"  Psalm  89. 14 — 145.  5.  8. 17.  And  after 
these  things  1  heard -a  great  voice  of  much  people  in  Heaven,  say- 
ing. Alleluia,  salvation,  and  glory,  and  honor,  and  power  unto  the 
Lord  our  God:  for  true  and  righteous  are  his  judgments;  for  he 
hath  judged  the  great  whore,  which  did  corrupt  the  earth  with  her 
fornitication,  and  hath  avenged  the  blood  of  his  servants  at  her 
hand."  Rev.  xix.  1.  2. 

It  appears  from  all  these  passages,  to  which  many  more  might 
be  added,  that  the  glory  of  God,  which  our  Saviour  came  to  dis- 
play and  vindicate,  consists  in  his  goodness,  justice ^  truth  and  holi' 
ness. 

We  must  now  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  those  words,  and 
endeavour  to  obtain  clear  conceptions  of  the  moral  attributes  to 
which  they  call  our  attention.  For  it  is  in  vain  we  are  told  that 
goodness  belongeth  unto  .God, unless  we  know  Mhat  the  term  good- 
ness means,  and  so  of  justice,  and  all  the  rest^ 

The  scriptures  being  written  in  human  language,  common  words 
are  used  according  to  their  common  meaning;  the  inspired  M'riters 
rarely,  if  ever,  give  a  definition  or  explanation  of  the  words 
they  use,  which  would  swell  the  bible  into  volumes,  but 
they  leave  us  to  learn  the  nature  of  intellectual  and  moral  quali- 
ties, by  eon<?ulting  the  dictates  of  our  cons-ciousness  and  moral 


im  AN  ESSAY  ON  THK 

faculty,  and  hy  using  our  reason  in  comparing  one  part  of  tlieir 
writings  with  another,  that  we  may  draw  just  conclusions  in  re- 
gard to  their  proper  signification. 

When  God  proclaimed  his  nature  unto  Moses,  he  simply  in- 
formed him,  that  he  was  "abundant  in  goodness, forgiving  iniquity, 
&,c."  without  explaining  the  nature  of  either  goodness,forgiveness, 
or  iniquity.  And  why  was  this,  but  because  he  knew  his  creatures 
were  able  to  acquire  a  right  conception  of  these  things  by  the  dic- 
tates of  their  original  faculties,  without  a  particular  definition  of 
them  by  revelation?  Had  we  no  conception  of  them  from  the  imme- 
diate dictates  of  our  moral  judgments,  the  bible  would  be  as  unin- 
telligible to  us  as  to  our  horses:  for  if  it  were  possible  to  give 
these  animals  a  conception  of  goodness  or  Justice,  however  faint, 
they  would  be  capable  of  moral  instruction  as  well  as  we;  and  were 
we  or  our  children  destitute  of  any  original  power  to  conceive  the 
first  principles  of  morality,  it  would  be  as  useless  for  the  bible  to 
be  presented  to  us,  as  to  any  other  animal  in  the  creation. 

The  nature  of  those  attributes,  or  qualities  of  an  intelligent  be- 
ing, which  God  proclaimed  unto  Moses,  as  belonging  to  himself, 
in  all  their  perfection,  is  discovered  by  the  human  mind,  not 
llirough  the  medium  of  either  reasoning  or  of  revelation,  but  by- 
immediate  and  intuitive  conviction;  but  as  to  their  application^ 
in  the  various  cases  of  life,  we  need  ail  the  assistance  we  can  ob- 
tain both  from  reason  and  from  the  oracles  of  God.  We  might 
here  show  the  impossibility  of  tlieir  being  proved  by  arguments, 
without  first  taking  them  for  granted;  but  as  a  siifticient  number 
of  examples  have  been  already  given,  it  may  now  suffice  lo  appeal 
to  the  impartial  judgment  of  mankind  for  the  truth  of  the  fol- 
lowing slatements; 

1.  The  words  good,  or  goodness,  signifies  those  qualities  of 
matter  or  of  mind,  that  tend  to  the  promotion  of  happiness.  Those 
parts  of  matter  which  supply  our  wants,  by  nourishing  our  na- 
ture, or  protecting  it  from  the  extremes  of  heat  or  cold,  we  de- 
Jiominate  good  thiiigs;  and  those  qualities  of  a  moral  agent,  which 
dispose  him  to  exert  his  power  in  diminishing  the  misery  and 
enlarging  the  happiness  of  his  fellow-creatures,  we  denuminate 
good  qualities,  because  of  their  tendency  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  the  creation. 

J\i''uiur(d good,  taken  in  its  most  general  sense,  signifies  happi- 
ness, together  with  the  natural  mens  of  it,  such  as  food  and  rai- 
ment, and  the  like. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  139 

»^atural  evil  consists  in  misery,  together  with  the  natural  means 
of  it,  such  as  the  poison  of  vegetables,  or  of  serpents,  or  any 
thing  else  which  naturally  tends  to  destroy  our  life,  health,  or 
happiness. 

Moral  evil,  in  general,  consists  in  those  qualities  of  a  moral 
agent  which  dispose  him  to  use  his  power  in  making  his  fellow- 
creatures  miserable. 

When  goodness  is  applied  to  the  mind  and  taken  in  the  most 
general  sense,  it  includes  all  attributes  or  properties  of  that  mind, 
which  dispose  it  to  delight  in  the  performance  of  every  action 
(hat  tends  to  diminish  the  wretchedness  and  promote  the  well-be- 
ing of  all  creatures  possessing  conscious  existence,  and  capable 
of  torment  or  felicity. 

Perfect  goodness,  therefore,  in  any  being,  consists  in  "a perpetual 
will  or  disposition  to  support  and  perpetuate  the  happiness  of 
every  creature  in  existence,  so  far  as  it  can  be  done  consistently 
with  justice."  It  has  nothing  to  do  witli  misery,  excepting  those 
degrees  of  it  that  may  be  necessary  to  promote  its  own  benevo- 
lent designs.  These  exceptions  are  the  three  following:  1.  A  good 
being,  who  is  perfectly  innocent,  may  voluntarily  enter  into  a 
state  of  misery,  for  the  sake  of  promoting  the  happiness  of  others, 
where  it  can  be  done  without  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  any 
other  individual.  In  this  case  he  gives  up  his  own  right  in  favour 
of  others,  in  which  consists  the  very  essence  of  benevolence.  By 
submitting  to  an  affliction  of  short  duration,  he  promotes  the  last- 
ing good  of  others,  without  abandoning  a  just  regard  for  his  own 
felicity,  which  he  resumes  and  establishes  himself  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of,  after  having  accomplished  the  work  of  kindness  in  be- 
half of  those  whom  he  delights  to  bless.  2.  A  ruler  may,  through 
perfect  goodness,  inflict  misery  on  guilty  and  obnoxious  indivi- 
duals, either  to  reform  the  offenders,  or  for  the  sake  of  vindicating 
the  rights,  and  defending  the  native  liberty  and  happiness  of  the 
innocent.  3.  When  innocent  creatures  have  received  a  disorder 
in  their  nature,  the  removal  of  which  necessarily  produces  a  mo- 
mentary pain,  it  is  perfectly  kind  and  gracious,  for  that  pain  to 
be  thus  inflicted,  for  the  sake  of  removing  a  greater  evil,  and  esta- 
blishing the  welfare  of  the  subject  in  future.  In  this  way  Physi- 
cians have  often  inflicted  severe  pain,  from  the  dictate  of  pure 
kindness  and  good  will  to  the  very  objects  who  were  suffering  un- 
der their  operations. 

Now  in  all  these  eases  the  pain  is  inflicted  for  the  sake  of  di 
miuishing  misery,  or  promoting  happiness,  which   is  the  ultimate 


140  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

end  of  the  agent.  But' such  a  regard  to  the  diminution  of  wretch- 
edness, and  the  enlargement  of  felicity,  constitutes  the  essence  of 
moral  gooduess,  and  therefore  the  action  which  inflicts  pain,  only 
so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  such  a  gracious  end,  proceeds  from 
a  benevolent  intention,  and  consequently  originates  in  perfect 
goodness  as  its  source. 

Goodness  exercises  itself  in  different  ways,  according  to  the 
nature  and  condition  of  its  object:  that  branch  of  it  which  secure* 
and  defends  tlie  happiness  of  others  in  exact  proportion  to  their 
ri-'ht  of  demand,  is  called  justice:  that  which  confers  happiness  on 
others  above  what  they  have  a  right  to  claim,  is  called  favour, 
grace  or  benevolence:  that  act  of  kindness  which  bears  with  the 
manners  of  offenders,  and  grants  them  time  for  repentance,  is 
called  long-suffering,  and  that  which  grants  them  forgiveness  is 
denominated  mercy. 

That  sympathy  for  another's  woe,  which  produces  a  desire  for 
its  removal,  and  which  God  has  planted  in  the  human  breast,  we 
call  jjify^  comjjassion  or  humanity.  This  tender  feeling  was  given 
to  supply  the  place  of  goodness  in  fallen  creatures,  and  it  often  sti- 
mulates those  to  relieve  the  miserable  who  are  destitute  of  any 
regard  to  moral  principles  in  their  general  deportment.  It  may  be 
subdued  by  long  and  confirmed  habits  of  evil;  but  it  retains  a  con- 
siderable influence  upon  the  generality  of  men,  even  upon  those 
who  refuse  to  be  governed  by  a  regard  to  justice;  and  the  few  who 
appear  to  have  subdued  the  last  feelings  of  humanity,  are  consider- 
ed as  a  kind  of  monsters  in  human  shape. 

This  sympathetic  feeling  appears  to  be  an  animal  principle  of 
action;  it  leads  many  to  acts  of  kindness,  in  an  instiuctive  way, 
and  the  inferior  animals  appear  to  act  under  its  influence  as  well 
as  man.  1  know  of  no  evidence  to  convince  us  that  it  is  essential 
to  the  nature  of  God,  whose  love  of  his  creatures,  and  whose  re- 
;^ard  to  the  principle  of  justice  and  benevolence  is  infinitely  per- 
fect, and  therefore  needs  no  such  an  auxiliary.  That  the  mere 
feeling  of  sympathy  is  an  animal  impulse,  appears  from  hence, 
that  those  animals  show  evident  signs  of  it,  who  have  no  concep- 
tion of  morality.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  think  any  thing  is  es- 
sential to  the  Deity  which  is  merely  animal;  and  therefore  we 
have  no  reason  to  coiisider  such  feelings  as  being  any  part  of  the 
divine  nature. 

It  is  true  that  our  Saviour,  having  assumed  our  nature,  assumed 
all  the  syuipathies  of  it,  and  hence  the  aposile  says,  "  We  have 
not  an  high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  oiir 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  14i 

infirmities;  hut  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  with- 
out sin."  Heb.  iv.  15.  How  far,  or  in  what  manner,  his  being 
touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities  may  be  essential  to  his 
office  as  our  Redeemer,  will  remain  a  mystery  or  a  secret,  perhaps, 
until  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality.  The  word  good- 
ness it  is  to  be  observed,  is  often  applied  in  a  limited  sense,  as  be- 
ing another  word  for  benevolence. 

2.  Justice,  abstractly  considered,  is  that  rule  of  moral  conduct 
which  accords  with,  and  is  limited  by  the  rights  of  all  beings  in 
existence.  Where  there  is  a  right  of  demand  in  any  beiug,  there 
Is  a  corresponding  obligation  in  others  to  act  with  a  sacred  regard 
to  that  right;  and  the  violation  of  justice  consists  in  any  voluntary 
action  which  deprives  another  of  his  right,  and  which  was  perpe- 
trated by  an  agent  who  had  a  knowledge  of  the  other's  right,  and 
a  conviction  of  his  own  obligation  not  to  infringe  upon  it.  When 
a  lion  takes  away  the  life  of  a  man,  he  is  not  guilty  of  injustice, 
not  because  the  action  is  involuntary,  (which  1  think  it  is  not)  but 
because  the  creature  has  no  conception  of  a  moral  right,  or  of  a 
corresponding  obligation. 

When  a  man's  right  is  violated,  he  sufters  an  injury;  that  is,  th» 
unjust  action  tends  to  diminish  his  happiness  or  enlarge  his  misery. 
But  though  the  action  may  have  this  tendency,  yet  the  agent  is 
not  unjust,  unless  he  both  knew  the  other's  right,  and  had  the  in- 
tention to  act  in  opposition  to  it;  a  thing  done  accidentally  or 
through  invincible  ignorance  is  certainly  not  unjust,  otherwise  we 
say  a  crime  arises  out  of  necessity,  and  a  person  is  culpable  for 
that  which  is  not  in  his  power. 

The  principle  of  justice  in  a  moral  agent,  according  to  the  de^ 
finition  given  in  the  Roman  law,  is  a  perpetual  will  to  render  unto 
all  men  their  right.  A  regard  to  universal  right,  or  a  perpetual 
desire  and  intention  to  promote  it  without  any  exception,  is  that 
love  of  justice  which  constitutes  the  character  of  an  honest  man, 
A  man  who  pays  his  debts  merely  from  a  fear  of  being  cast  into 
prison,  or  from  any  other  motive  but  that  of  a  regard  to  justice, 
cannot  be  considered  as  an  honest  manj  for  if  he  was  influenced  by 
other  motives,  without  any  regard  to  this,  it  was  not  for  the  sake 
of  justice  he  acted  as  he  did,  and  had  it  not  been  for  other  stimn- 
lants  he  would  have  violated  it  in  practice. 

He  who  intends  to  injure  another,  but  is  never  able  to  execute 
his  purpose,  is  an  unjust  man  in  principle,  and  would  be  «>  in 
practice  if  notpreventedv 
T 


i^3  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

He  who  Mishes  another  to  be  injured,  and  who  would  injure 
him,  were  it  not  for  the  fear  of  being  detected,  punished  or  expos- 
ed, is  also  an  unjust  man  in  principle. 

It  follows  that  no  man  can  be  truly  just  without  "loving  his 
neighbour  as  himself,  and  doing  to  others  as  he  would  they  should 
do  to  him." 

God  has  a  right  to  the  supreme  veneration,  love,  and  obedience 
of  all  intelligent  creatures. 

All  innocent  creatures,  in  a  state  of  perfect  order,  ha>  e  a  right 
to  the  character  of  innocence,  and  to  the  consequeuces  of  it;  and 
no  person  can  charge  them  with  being  guilty  when  are  they  not  so, 
or  punish  them  as  such,  without  being  unjust. 

WJien  one  creature  knowingly  and  intentionally  acts  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  right  of  other  creatures,  or  of  his  Creator,  he  thereby 
forfeits  his  own  right  to  the  character  and  consequences  of  inno- 
cence, and  deserves  to  be  punished  in  proportion  to  his  demerit. 
He  has  a  right  still  to  demand  that  tlie  blame  and  punishment, 
shall  not  exceed  tlie  oSence;  and  no  being  can  charge  him  with 
more  guilt  than  he  has  actually  contracted,  or  punish  him  for 
Sfimes  he  never  committed,  without  being  unjust. 

If  his  children,  or  other  creatures,  are  involved  in  misery  in 
consequence  of  his  crime,  which  they  would  otherwise  have  avoid- 
ed,  he  has  injured  them  in  defiance  of  justice,  and  this  is  a  princi- 
pal ground  of  his  demerit  or  ill  desert. 

His  guilt,  however,  is  not  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  the  inju- 
ry considered  distinct  from,  but  in  conjunction  with,  his  knowledge 
and  intention  to  do  wrong.  I  will  suppose  one  man  discharges  a 
pistol  at  a  tree,  in  order  to  scare  a  person  who  stands  near  it,  and 
that  the  bullet  glances  from  the  side  of  the  tree  and  passes 
throught  his  liead;  another  fires  at  liis  neighbour  with  an  intention 
to  break  his  arm,  but  inadvertently  shoots  him  through  the  heart: 
a. third  deliberately  runs  a  sword  through  his  neighbour's  body, 
with  the  full  intention  to  take  his  life. 

Here  are  three  cases,  in  which  the  hurt  or  loss  sustained  by  the 
sufferers  is  the  same.  But  does  any  reasonable  man  want  arguments 
to  convince  him  that  the  degree  of  guilt  is  not  the  same  in  all 
those  eases?  Had  nothing  followed  in  the  first  case  but  what  was 
intended,  the  injury  would  have  been  comparatively  small;  but 
still  the  thing  was  criminal,  because  the  intention  wJis  to  scare  a 
person  by  such  means  as  he  knew,  or  might  have  known,  would 
(Expose  his  fellow -creature  to  considerable  danger.  But  in  the  last 
■^ft»e  there  was  a  full  intention  to  deprive  another  of  his  life  with 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  148 

a  lull  knowledge  of  tlie  immediale  tendency  of  the  means  made 
use  of,  to  produce  that  efiect. 

When  one  or  more  creatures  are  brought  into  a  state  of  misery 
or  natural  disorder,  by  the  bad  conduct  of  others,  or  by  any  other 
means,  the  person  that  shall  deliver  Uliem  from  this  state,  through 
a  regard  to  their  happiness,  without  being  under  any  obligation  of 
justice  to  do  it,  and  without  violating  any  right  of  others,  is  truly 
benevolent. 

If  in  doing  this,  he  should  find  it  necessary  to  expose  himself  to 
any  kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  which  justice  did  not  require  of 
him,  which  should  not  be  inconsistent  with  his  I'esuming  again  his 
native  happiness,  and  which  was  endured  from  a  pure  intention  to 
glorify  God  and  enlarge  the  Jiappiness  of  his  creatures,  this  suf- 
fering, far  from  being  unjust,  would  increase  the  merit  of  his  be- 
nevolence. To  deny  this,  is  to  say  it  is  unjust  to  be  kind,  and  an 
innocent  person  must  never  be  benevolent  but  where  it  costs  him 
nothing, 

If  he  should  find  it  necessary  to  inflict  a  degree  of  pain  on  any 
of  those  creatures  with  his  own  hand,  which  justice  did  not  require 
that  they  should  endure,  in  order  to  prevent  a  greater  evil  or  es- 
tablish them  in  a  state  of  perfect  happiness  afterwards,  this  suf- 
fering inflicted  on  them,  far  from  being  unjust,  would  result  from 
pure  benignity,  whicli  carries  justice  in  its  bosom,  and  bestows 
more  happiness  on  others  than  they  have  a  right  injustice  to  de»^ 
mand. 

Injustice  consists,  not  merely  in  inflicting  pain  on  the  innocent, 
but  in  doing  it  when  it  is  unnecessary,  and  from  such  a  regard  to 
some  selfish  gratification,  as  makes  the  agent  regardless  of  the 
rights  or  happiness  of  the  innocent  sufterer.  But  when  the  pain  is 
necessary  to  counteract  a  disorder  v*  hich  would  produce  a  greater 
degree  or  duration  of  it  in  future,  or  which  would  prevent  a  last- 
ing benefitj  the  person  who  inflicts  it  from  a  pure  regard  to  the 
increase  of  happiness  and  diminution  of  misery,  is  perfectly  just 
and  good.  Deny  this,  and  we  say  at  once,  that  all  physicians  are 
nnjust,  or  else  that  they  always  inflict  pain  on  their  patients  in  ex- 
act proportion  to  what  they  deserve,  and  what  justice  inflexibly 
requires. 

These  statements  I  must  now  take  for  granted:  for  their  truth 
I  appeal  to  the  reader's  judgment,  and  shall  forbear  tracing  tli^ 
absurdities  which  would  follow  from  a  denial  of  them,  till  I  come 
to  apply  them  to  the  several  doctrines  defended  in  the  present  es* 
ady. 


IM  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

3.  The  moral  attribute  of  truth,  consists  in  a  perpetual  will  or 
disposition  to  think,  speak  and  act,  with  a  sacred  regard  to  truth, 
and  never  intentionally  to  do  any  thing  that  is  calculated  to  deceive 
ourselves  or  others. 

It  implies  such  a  love  of  truth,  arising  from  a  conviction  of  its 
tendency  to  promote  the  happiness  of  intelligent  beings,  as  shall 
influence  us  to  use  all  the  means  in  our  power  to  know  the  truth, 
to  assist  others  to  know  it, — to  guard  against  falsehood,  to  assist 
others  to  guard  against  it, — and  to  abhor  all  lying,  deceit  or  dis- 
simulation. 

So  far  as  any  man  indulges  prejudice^  or  refuses  to  give  evi- 
dence a  fair  hearing,  through  party  attachments,  voluntary  neg- 
ligence, or  any  thing  else  that  depends  upon  his  will^  so  far  he  is 
deficient  in  the  love  of  truth. 

So  far  as  any  man  knowingly  and  intentionally  uses  sophisti- 
cal reasonings,  or  any  kind  of  false  evidence,  calculated  to  de-' 
ccive  others  and  impose  upon  their  understandings,  so  far  he  acts 
in  opposition  to  the  moral  attribute  under  consideration,  and  is  so 
fiir  culpable  before  that  Almighty  Being,  who  requireth  truth  in 
the  inward  parts. 

Through  the  w  eakness  of  our  understanding,  we  are  all  liable 
to  fall  into  errors,  and  to  lead  otliers  into  them;  but  in  such  cases 
as  do  not  arise  from  indolence,  or  any  want  of  attention  or  can- 
dour on  our  part,  wo  are  altogether  inculpable,  because  no  person 
is  blamable  for  not  doing  that  which  is  not  in  his  power. 

4.  Iloliness,  I  think,  is  a  general  term,  not  so  properly  applied 
to  any  distinct  and  particular  attribute,  as  to  the  perfection  of  alJf 
moral  attributes  in  harmony. 

A  being  that  is  perfectly  benevolent,  just  and  true,  we  call  a 
holy  being;  and  surely  his  holiness  consists  in  the  perfection  of 
his  justice,  truth  and  goodness,  and  in  nothing  else:  at  least,  if 
there  be  any  other  moral  quality  distinct  from  these,  I  have  ne- 
ver been  able  to  form  any  con&eption  of  it. 

Shall  we  say  holiness  consists  in  moral  purity  and  a  perfect 
hatred  of  sin?  But  vyhat  is  moral  purity  but  the  perfect  iufluenco 
of  the  attributes  above  mentioned?  And  what  does  hatred  of  sin 
arise  from,  but  from  a  love  of  goodness,  truth  and  justice? 

Mr.  Wesley  som-ewherc  speaks,  and  1  think  very  properly,  con- 
cerning "  holiness  in  all  its  branches."  The  several  »branches  of 
it  are  mentioned  above,  and  as  unniercil'nlness,  injustice  and 
falsehood  are  the  branches  of  wickedness  or  unholiness,  so  their 
wpposites  are  tli^e  branches  of  holiness,  which  is  a  general  term. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  145 

including  every  principle  aud  action  that  is  necessary  to  perfect 
rectitude. 

Although  justice,  truth  and  benevolence,  may  be  conceived  dis- 
tinctly from  each  other,  yet  I  think  there  is  a  kind  of  unity  in  them, 
and  a  mutual  dependence,  whicli  makes  them  appear  to  be  insepa- 
rable. He  >vho  is  so  destitute  of  a  regular  regard  to  human  hap- 
piness as  to  refuse  to  be  benevolent,  when  in  his  power,  will  not 
perform  acts  of  justice  from  a  pure  love  of  the  principle,  but  from 
some  selfish  motive:  he  who  is  unjust,  cannot  be  benevolent,  and  he 
who  injures  his  neighbour  by  deceit  and  lying,  is  certainly  unjust 
and  unmerciful. 

The  unity  of  those  attributes,  and  that  which  is  common  to 
them  all,  I  take  to  be  "  a  constant  intention  to  enlarge  happiness 
and  diminish  misery  as  much  as  possible."  This  implies  a  delight 
in  the  promotion  of  happiness,  and  a  love  for  all  good  beings,  so 
far  as  they  are  good,  that  is,  so  far  as  they  are  disposed  and  fixed 
in  the  intention  to  enlarge  happiness  and  diminish  misery  as 
much  as  possible. 

Those  glorious  attributes  belong  to  our  Maker  in  all  their  ful- 
ness: abundant  in  goodness  and  truth — and  that  will  by  no  means 

CLEAR  i/te  GUILTY. 

So  far  as  we  act  from  a  love  to  those  perfections  of  the  Deity, 
and  from  a  regard  to  universal  happiness,  so  far  we  partake  of  the 
image  of  God,  in  which  man  was  at  first  created.  "  To  love  the 
Lord  our  God  with  all  our  heart,"  is  to  love  goodness,  truth  and 
justice;  and  while  this  love  is  uniform,  and  is  not  interrupted  by 
other  motives,  it  will  lead  us  to  "  do  unto  all  men  as  we  would 
have  them  do  unto  us."  But  alas!  our  love  is  too  often  wavering; 
other  motives  mingle  with  our  regards  to  righteousness;  and  in 
this  consists  the  deficiency  of  human  virtue.  There  is  no  mixture 
of  other  motives  in  the  divine  mind,  and  hence  there  is  perfect 
consistency  and  uniformity  in  all  his  actions:  He  never  deviatei 
from  a  pure  regard  to  general  happiness,  and  never  will  do  it  in 
any  period  of  eternal  duration.  But  we  sometimes  yield  to  selfish 
influences,  and  hence  there  is  an  irregularity  and  inconsistency  in 
our  deportment.  We  often  make  blunders  also  through  ignorance 
and  unavoidable  mistakes,  to  which  the  Almighty  is  not  liable. 
For  these  our  heavenly  Father  will  not  condemn  us;  but  so  far  as 
our  wrong  conduct  arises  from  an  abuse  of  our  power,  or  a  neglect 
tq  use  it,  so  far  we  are  guilty,  and  every  being  of  truth  and  jus- 
tice must  disapprobate  us  accordingly. 


146  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

All  God's  perfections  are  in  harmony  with  each  other.  If  there 
were  any  inconsistency  or  contradiction  in  the  divine  attributes, 
they  would  lead  to  an  inconsistency  of  conduct.  If  justice  ever 
contradicts  benevolence,  then  every  being  must  lay  one  or  the 
other  of  them  aside,  orcoutradict  himself  in  practice. 

There  has,  perhaps,  never  been  a  more  ridiculous  or  dangerous 
mistake  in  the  world  than  the  supposition  that  one  moral  attribute 
may  contradict  another:  it  has,  if  I  mistake  not,  given  rise  to  the 
most  inconsistent  and  barbarous  systems  of  divinity,  that  ever 
darkened  the  human  mind,  and  M'hich  ultimately  resolve  them- 
selves  into  the  Manicheau  principle,  that  the  full  disposition  of 
essential  wickedness  belongs  to  God,  as  well  as  holiness!  Surely 
if  any  attribute  be  a  perfection,  that  which  contradicts  it  must  be 
an  imperfection:  if  one  be  moral,  its  opposite  must  be  immoral:  if 
one  be  righteous,  its  contrary  must  be  unrighteous.  If  we  deny  this, 
we  say  plainly  "  that  virtue  and  vice  are  not  opposite  to  each 
other,  but  that  virtue  or  moral  goodness  is  opposite  to  itself. 

Benevolence  produced  all  happiness  in  the  creation,  truth  di- 
rected creatures  how  to  enjoy  and  retain  it,  and  justice  guarded  it, 
and  demanded  that  it  should  not  be  interrupted.  What  contradic- 
tion is  there  in  this.^^None  at  all:  the  divine  attributes  agreed  to 
promote  happiness,  and  to  forbid  the  introduction  of  misery;  and 
the  first  act  of  an  intelligent  being,  which  injured  others,  or  obstruct- 
ed the  flow  of  happiness,  opposed  the  influence  of  goodness,  truth 
and  justice,  and  this  was  the  ground  of  its  criminality. 

But  did  sin  make  any,  alteration  in  the  divine  attributes.-^ 
did  it  throw  them  into  confusion,  or  change  the  nature 
of  any  of  them.=  God  forbid.  Benevolence  is  as  much  disposed  to 
communicate  happiness,  truth  to  conduct  us  to  it,  and  justice  to  de^ 
fend  it,  as  they  ever  were.  Hence  we  find  a  wise  plan  has  been 
devised  and  executed  from  the  dictate  of  goodness,  and  communi- 
cated to  us  accordJJtg  to  that  of  truth,  to  save  all  sinners  that  will 
be  saved  without  taking  their  principles  of  rebellion  to  heaven; 
and  this  they  cannot  do,  because  justice  is  as  much  as  ever  disposed 
to  defend  the  general  welfare. 

Justice  never  inflicts  misery,  even  on  the  guilty,  without  some 
essential  good  in  view;  either  to  reform  the  ottender,  or  to  guard 
others  from  the  influence  of  his  crimes:  and  when  it  is  thus  neces- 
sary, it  is  surely  as  consistent  with  goodness  as  it  is  with  justice. 

A  principle  which  inflicts  misery  for  no  end,  or  for  a  bad  one, 
is  as  contrary  to  justice  as  it  is  to  mercy,  and  such  a  principle  can 
not  be  imputed  to  the  Almighty,  without  charging  him  with  esse'i^ 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  147; 

*Ial  wickedness.  When  punishments  are  inflicted  on  sisners  with 
a  view  to  their  reformation,  it  is  kind  as  well  as  just;  and  whea 
they  are  punished  without  a  regard  to  their  individual  advantage, 
it  is  beeavse  they  utterly  refused  the  overtures  of  mercy,  and  is 
done  with  a  view  to  the  welfare  of  others.  Thus  are  all  just  pun- 
ishments inflietedfor  a  good  end:  that  is,  forthe  purpose  of  promot- 
ing happiness  and  preventing  misery. 

God  is  love, "  and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and 
God  in  him.".  1  John.  iv.  16.  The  office  of  justice  is  not  to  con- 
tradict love,  but  to  defend  the  medium  through  which  love  dis- 
plays itself,  and  diffuses  tranquillity  to  all  creatures  that  con- 
sent to  come  under  its  benign  influences. 


SECTION  II. 

Sin  dishonours  God,  and  destroys  the  happiness  of  his  creatures^ 
therefore  his  displeasure  against  it  must  be  manifested. 

God  has  given  his  creatures  a  law  or  moral  government,  that 
is,  his  truth  has  communicated  certain  rules  of  action  to  their  un- 
derstandings, founded  upon  justice  and  goodness,  with  a  conviction 
of  their  obligation  to  conform  to  those  rules  without  any  excep- 
tion or  violation.  That  the  law  is  founded  upon  those  attributes, 
is  evident  from  the  following  scriptures: 

"Thy  righteousness  is  an  everlasting  righteousness,  and  thy 
law  is  the  tnith.^^  Psalms  cxix.  cxlii. 

"The  law  of  truth  was  in  his  mouth,  and  iniquity  was  not  found 
in  his  lips:  he  Avalked  with  me  in  peace  and  equity,  and  did  turn 
many  away  from  iniquity."  Mai.  ii.  6. 

"Wherefore  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment  AoZ^,  andjusf, 
and  goody  Rom.  vii.  12. 

The  Almighty's  government  is  jMSf,  because  it  seoures  the  rights  of 
all  beings  in  existence:  it  is  good,  because  its  native  tendency  is  to 
promote  the  happiness  of  all  intelligent  creatures,  and  misery  was 
never  introduced  but  by  a  departure  from  its  precepts:  it  is  frwe, 
because  it  has  no  tendency  to  deceive,  but  gives  a  correct  view  of 
the  nature  of  God,  and  of  the  way  in  which  happiness  is  to  bd 
enjoyed.  Therefore  it  is  holy,  because  it  supports  every  mora! 
principle. 


14i  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

As  the  glory  of  God  consists  in  his  moral  attributes;  and  as 
those  attributes  are  exhibited  through  the  medium  of  his  law  or 
government;  it  follows,  that  the  way  creatures  are  to  glorify  God, 
is  for  them  to  support  his  government  by  cordial  obedience  to  every 
precept  of  the  law.  "If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide  in 
you,  ye  shall  ask  what  ye  will,  and  it  sliall  be  done  unto  you. 
Herein  is  my  father  glorijied^  that  ye  bear  much  fruit:  so  shall  ye 
he  my  disciples."  John,  xv.  7,  8.  "  Let  your  light  so  shine  before 
men,  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  und  glorify  your  father 
that  is  in  heaven."  Mat.  v.  16. 

But  how  does  the  law  of  God  promote  the  happiness  of  his  crea- 
tures? I  think  it  is  done  in  two  ways:  lirst,  by  means  of  the  under- 
standing; and  second,  by  means  of  the  attections.* 

1.  By  presenting  the  glorious  nature  of  God  and  of  his  govern- 
ment to  the  understanding,  the  soul  is  charmed  and  possesses  a 
conscious  felicity  from  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  those  objects 
thus  presented  to  its  intellectual  discernment.  In  proof  of  this,  we 
may  appeal  to  two  authorities:  first,  to  the  oracles  of  God,  which 
declare  in  many  places,  directly  or  indirectly,  that  the  influence 
of  truth  upon  the  understanding  produces  happiness. 

"Take  not  the  word  of  truth  out  of  my  mouth;  ye  shall  know 
the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free:  his  delight  is  in  the 

*  Mr,  Superville  says,  in  a  sermon,  "The  soul  is  capable  of 
three  general  affections;  to  know,  to  love,  and  lo  feel;  which  are 
three  sources  of  actions  and  pleasures  that  are  almost  without 
juimber. — It  is  very  certain  tliat  the  soul,  disengaged  from  the  bo- 
dy, elevated  above  visible  things,  and  admitled  into  the  presence 
of  Christ,  shall  know  God  in  a  manner  very  difterent  from  that  in 
which  we  knew  him  in  this  life.  What  then  can  hinder  the  ac- 
tivity of  the  soul.''  Is  it  not  certain  that  an  understanding,  refined, 
extended,  always  in  motion,  continually  employed  in  the  discove- 
ry of  new  objects;  always  forming  just  ideas;  always  at  the  source 
of  truth;  always  enlightened  by  him  who  enlightens  every  man 
that  Cometh  into  the  world;  always  capable  of  considering  truths 
in  connexion  Mifh  their  causes  and  eftects,  and  in  their  relation  to 
God  and  Jesus  Christ;  is  it  not  certain,  I  say,  that  an  understand- 
ing thus  refined,  and  thus  occupied,  will  be  a  source  of  unspeaka- 
ble knowledge,  and  perpetual  joy?"  See  the  Methodist  magazine 
lor  the  year  1811,  vol.  Si-,  pages  95,  96. 

There  can  be  no  objection  to  this  just  and  animating  view  of  the 
subject;  but  I  presume  the  author  would  be  understood  to  mean, 
that  the  "three  sources  of  actions  and  pleasures,"  which  he  men- 
tions, though  distinct  in  conception,  are  nevertheless  united  in  na- 
ture; and  that  there  is  no  feeling  essential  to  an  intelligent  nature, 
but  what  arises  from  knowledge  and  love,  or  js  inseparably  con* 
aectcd  with  them. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION  ,1^ 

}fi\v  of  the  Lord,  and  in  his  law  doth  he  meditate  day  and  night." 
Psalm  cxix.  43.  John,  viii.  33.  Psalm  i.  3.  Now  if  the  pious  man 
delight  in  his  meditations  on  the  law,  that  happiness  results  from 
the  beauties  of  it  presented  to  the  understanding. 

Secondly;  we  may  appeal  to  the  consciousness  of  every  man  of 
reflection,  and  ask  if  he  finds  no  happiness  in  the  exercise  of  his 
understanding,  while  he  beholds  the  glory  of  God,  displayed  in 
the  goodness  and  justice  of  his  moral  government? 

3.  The  law  prod'uces  harmony  in  our  aftections,  harmony  with, 
our  fellow-creatures,  and  union  with  our  Creator;  from  this  results 
all  the  sweets  of  moral,  social,  and  divine  felicity.  We  have 
peace  in  ourselves,  peace  and  love  with  our  brethren,  communion 
with  God,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  true,  all  our  happiness 
is  from  God;  but  it  is  communicated  through  the  free  exercise  of 
our  intellectual  and  active  powers,  by  means  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment, which  influences  us  by  moral  motives,'  and  not  by  com- 
pulsion. How  can  we  be  happy  in  the  love  of  God,  or  of  our  fel- 
low-creatures, unless  we  choose  to  love  them.^  A  forced  love,  pro- 
duced by  mechanical  impulse,  is  a  most  glaring  absurdity. 

The  law  of  God  is  calculated  to  delight  the  understanding,  to 
influence  the  will,  to  harmonize  the  aftections,  and  to  regulate  the 
conduct:  it  unites  the  creatures  of  God  together  as  a  band  of  bro- 
thers, assimilates  them  into  the  divine  nature,  and  thus  conducts 
them  to  the  eternal  fountain  of  love  and  tranquillity.  They  par- 
take of  the  felicity  of  their  heavenly  Father,  because  they  are 
governed  by  the  same  moral  principles,  which  are  essential  to  his 
own  perfect  nature,  and  which  (with  reverence  permit  me  to  think) 
constitute  the  everlasting  happiness  of  Almighty  God.  I  must 
therefore  conclude  that  the  full  joys  of  the  upper  world  flow  to 
creatures  through  the  channel  or  medium  of  the  moral  law,  which 
was  established  by  our  benevolent  Creator  to  promote  this  gracious 
ejid. 

But  what  saith  the  scripture.^  It  saith  love  is  the  fufilling  of  the 
law:  and  every  one  who  ever  loved  knows  that  love  and  happiness 
are  inseparable.  Rom.  xiii.  10.  Again,  the  Lord  Jesus  says,  "  As 
the  father  hath  loved  me;  so  have  I  loved  you;  continue  ye  in  my 
love.  If  ye  keep  my  commandments  ye  shall  abide  in  my  love;  even 
as  I  have  kept  my  father's  commandments,  and  abide  in  his  love. 
These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  my  joy  might  remain  in 
yau,  and  thtxt yorir  joy  might  befull.'^  John  xv.  9, 10,  &c.  The  psalm- 
ist says,  <'The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul.  The 
testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the  simple.  The  sta- 
ll 


iJO  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

tutes  of  tlic  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart:  the  commandrnett 
of  tlie  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  CT/es:  the  judgments  of  the 
liord  are  tnie  and  righteous  altogether.  More  to  be  desired  arc 
they  than  gold,  yea,  than  much  fine  gold;  sweeter  &\so  than  honey 
and  the  honey-comb.  Moreover,  by  them  is  thy  servuni  warned; 
and  in  heeping  of  them  there  is  great  reward.  Lord,  1  have  hoped 
for  thy  salvation,  and  done  thy  commandments.  My  soul  hath 
kept  tliy  testimonies;  and  I  love  them  exceedingly.  Great  peace. 
have  they  which  love  thy  laW;  and  nothing  shall  ofibnd  them." 
Psalm  xix.  7,  &c. — cxix.  145,  &c.  "But  whoso  lookcth  into  the 
perfect  law  of  libertij^  and  continueth  therein,  he  lieing  not  a  for- 
getful hearerJmt  a  doer  of  the  work,  this  man  shall  heblessed  in  his 
deed.  For  the  commandment  is  a  lamp;  and  the  law  is  light;  and 
reproofs  of  instruction  are  the  way  of  life."  Jam.  i.  25.  Prov.  vi.  2:i. 
St.  Paul  tells  us  "The  command mcnt  wa.^  ordained  to  life ;^-  and 
our  Saviour,  who  certainly  understood  the  nature  and  end  of  the 
divine  law',  says  expressly,  "  1  know  that  his  commandment  is  life 
everlasting.'^  liora.  vii.  10.  Jolm,  xii.  50.  We  are  therefore  war- 
ranted in  the  conclusion  that  the  glonj  of  the  Creator  and  the  hap^ 
piness  of  all  rational  creatures,  are  supported  by  means  of  his 
maral  government. 

Front  this  it  follows,  that  a  violation  of  the  law  is  an  insult  to 
all  the  attributes  of  God;  an  infringement  upon  the  general  plan 
of  happiness;  aviolation  of  all  right;  and  consequently  sin  is  a  v^-y 
great  evil.  Its  native  tendency  is  to  dissolve  the  harmony  of  uni- 
Tersal  society,  to  obstruct  the  inliuence  of  every  righteous  princi- 
ple, and  to  produce  everlasting  misery  and  disorder.  Is  justice 
roused  to  execute  vengeance  upon  the  sinner.^  it  is;  and  all  the  other 
attributes  are  equally  insulted.  Goodness  is  opposed  to  the  rebel, 
because  he  obstructs  the  generay  flow  of  happiness;  truth,  be- 
j*ause  his  conduct  tends  to  obscure  the  goverjiment;  and  justice, 
because  he  has  violated  tlie  rights  of  others. 

But  would  not  the  repentance  of  the  criminal  be  a  sufficient 
atonement,  to  influence  the  divine  being  to  exercise  forgiveness? 
AnsAVcr: 

1.  Repentance  alone  would  not  manifest  God's  abhorrence  of  the 
erime  at  all;  every  one  might  consider  sin  a  very  small  thing;  a 
little  mistake  of  the  judgment  a  mere  trivial  aftair,  that,  at  any 
time  woukl  admit  of  forgiveness  upon  a  bare  acknowledgment; 
therefore  (it  might  be  said)  let  us  all  try  if  there  be  not  some  un- 
known advantage  in  it:  at  all  events  we  shall  lose  nothing,  for 
whatever  be   the  iioTisequences,  it  is  plain  wc   can  be  delivered 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  151 

from  them  when  we  please  by  a  little  confessiou  and  repentance. 
Will  the  great  Lord  of  angels  and  men  thus  suft'er  liis  government 
to  sink  into  contempt.^  Will  such  a  small  acknowledgment  satisfy 
his  goodness,  justice  and  spotless  holiness?  Will  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  his  moral  law  be  secured,  and  the  general  happiness 
maintained,  by  such  a  feeble  and  diminutive  administration.^ 

2.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  sin  has  a  pernicious  influence  up- 
on the  aifections  and  moral  faculties  of  the  sinner:  he  contracts 
habits  of  aversion  to  the  law  and  the  law-giver,  as  well  as  amoral 
incapacity  to  recover  himself.  If  then  he  were  treated  as  an  obe- 
dient subject,  upon  his  repentance,  while  he  had  a  secret  prone- 
ncss  of  disaffection  to  the  government,  the  foundation  would  be 
laid  for  universal  depravity.  The  sinner  must  therefore  be  reform- 
ed and  renewed,  that  a  properprovision  may  be  made  for  his  future 
allegiance:  and  this  must  be  done  by  an  arm  more  mighty  than  his 
own.  And  if  God  were  to  grant  this  extra  assistance  by  virtue  of 
his  repentance  alone,  this  supposes  his  confession  would  more  than 
counterbalance  his  fault,  inasmuch  as  it  would  not  only  enable 
him  to  obtain  what  he  had  before,  but  would  merit  an  additional 
display  of  divine  power;  that  of  renewing  a  fallen  creature.  This 
would  surely  exhibit  rebellion  in  a  very  favourable  point  of  view! 
and  would  represent  it  as  a  small  and  trivial  matter,  which  God 
is  willing  to  excuse  or  pardon,  and  even  to  reward  upon  a  bare 
confession  or  repentance. 

3.  As  the  purity  of  God's  nature  Mould  not  thus  be  displayed, 
by  a  full  proof  of  his  hatred  against  sin,  it  would  neither  accord 
with  goodness  nor  justice  for  rebels  to  be  received  to  favour  upon 
such  terms;  because  it  would  weaken  the  motives  to  moral  obedi- 
ence in  the  upright,  and  diminish  tlieir  confidence  in  the  divine  at- 
tributes ef  their  Creator. 

4.  This  notion,  concerning  the  all-sufficiency  of  repentance, 
originates  in  the  most  unjustifiable  arrogance  and  presumption. 
God  assures  us  his  nature  demands  another  kind  of  satisfaction, 
and  who  is  the  man  that,  upon  second  thoughts,  will  venture  to 
direct  the  Almighty  what  kind  of  atonement  would  be  requisite  to 
repair  the  injury  done  to  his  glory? 

5.  If  we  suppose  the  government  of  God  needs  no  other  satis- 
faction than  the  repentance  of  the  offender,  we  consider  it  infe- 
rior to  the  laws  of  men:  because  it  often  happens  that  repentance 
or  acknowledgment  affords  a  criminal  no  security,  and  many  have 
been  executed  without  being  asked  Avhether  they  repented  or  not. 
Does  the  insulted  authority  of  the  Almighty  require  less  satisfac- 


153  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

tion  than  the  momentary  laws  of  men?  Such  an  opinion  is  a  re.- 
proach  to  our  maker,  a  support  to  human  pride,  a  violation  of 
common  sense  and  reason,  and  stands  amongst  the  Avhimsieul  ab- 
surdities of  infidelity. 


SECTION  III. 

The  attributes  of  God  were  glorified  in  the  redemption  of  the 
world,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Consider  we  next  liow  God  was  glorified  in  the  highest,  in  the 
redemption  of  the  world  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  To  understand^ 
this  in  the  clearest  light,  it  is  necessary  to  inquire  how  God  would 
have  vindicated  his  government,  and  displayed  his  glory  if  sin- 
ners had  not  been  redeemed. 

It  will  be  readily  admitted  that  God  was  not  bound  in  justice  to 
send  a  Saviour  for  fallen  man:  revelation  assures  us  that  lov& 
is  the  sx)urce  of  redemptron,  and  God  could  have  manifested  the 
purity  of  his  nature  by  executing  the  sentence  of  the  law  upon  ev- 
ery oftcnder.  And  if  it  be  asked,  why  was  it  necessary  for  Christ 
to  die  for  the  salvation  of  sinners?  we  must  ask  a  previous  ques- 
tion: why  must  men  or  angels  be  punished  on  account  of  their  re- 
bellion against  God?  A  proper  answer  to  this  question  will  effec- 
tually answer  the  other,  and  will  give  us  a  just  view  of  the  de- 
sign of  our  Saviour's  sufferings  and  death  upon  the  cross. 

Supposing  no  Saviour  liad  interposed  for  sinners,  and  God  had 
executed  the  sentence  upon  every  criminal;  on  what  principle  could 
this  act  of  the  Creator  be  accounted  for?  We  must  believe  either, 
(1.)  that  he  punishes  sinners  for  no  other  reason  but  his  own  sove^ 
reign  pleasure;  or  (2.)  that  he  does  it  from  a  regard  to  the  safety 
and  7vell-being  of  his  creatures  in  general. 

If  it  be  done  for  no  other  reason  but  his  own  sovereign  pleasure, 
it  Mill  follow,  (1.)  that  he  has  no  regard  to  the  promotion  oi' hap- 
piness in  this  severity  against  offenders,  and  therefore,  there  is  no 
goodyiess  in  the  matter:  (2)  that  he  has  no  regard  to  the  security 
of  the  native  rights  of  his  creatures,  and  therefore  it  cannot 
arise  from  moraX  justice:  (3.)  that  there  is  some  principle  in  the 
Deity  that  delights  to  inflict  torment,  when  it  is  not  necessary  to 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  1^3 

secure  the  Mell-being  of  any  creature  in  existence.  These  conse- 
quences are  too  evident  to  be  denied,  and  too  shocking  to  be  ad- 
mitted by  any  reflecting  mind:  and  we  have  no  other  alternative, 
hut  to  admit  that  a  benevolent  and  righteous  governor  inflicts  pe- 
nalties on  obnoxious  individuals  from  a  regard  to  the  general 
good  of  society. 

If  punishments  be  inflicted  by  an  earthly  ruler,  uheu  they  are 
not  necessary  for  the  support  of  good  government,  and  the  securi- 
ty of  general  happiness,  all  men  of  common  understanding  will 
agree  that  such  an  act  in  the  governor's  administration  arises 
either  from  his  caprice  and  ignorance,  from  bis  j^ride  and  selfish- 
ness, or  from  the  tyranny  and  malevolence  of  his  disposition.  As 
nothing  of  this  kind  can  be  imputed  to  the  Creator, — as  he  views 
such  selfish  and  wicked  principles  with  unchangeable  abhorrence, 
— the  conclusion  is  incontestable,  that  his  sentence  against  offen- 
ders arises  from  perfect  justice  and  goodness,  or  in  other  words, 
from  a  pure  regard  to  those  principles  of  government,  the  vindi- 
cation of  which  is  cssenti*il  to  the  security  and  welfare  of  his  obe- 
dient children. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  thieves  and  murderers  are  permitted  to  pass 
with  impunity  under  any  government,  and  are  never  punished  for 
their  crimes, we  justly  inferthat  there  is  adefkiency  of  principle  in 
the  government  itself,  or  in  the  executive.  If  the  magistrate  never 
execute  the  sentence  of  the  law  upon  the  violators  of  it,  we  conclude 
the  principle  of  justice  has  little  or  no  influence  «pon  him,  that  he 
is  indiflereut  to  the  public  interest,  and  that  his  pernicious  lenity 
arises  from  a  partial  fondness  for  criminals,  and  a  secret  disaf- 
fection to  the  principles  of  his  own  government.  Now  if  the  divine 
administration  should  leave  any  just  ground  for  such  suspicions, 
what  darkness  would  overspread  the  universe,  and  how  would  all 
moral  creatures  be  injured,  whose  happiness  consists  in  their  confi- 
dence in,  and  attachment  to,  the  pure  nature  of  their  Almighty 
Father.^  To  prevent  such  a  general  calamity,  the  justice  and  good- 
ness of  God  are  engaged  to  support  the  dignity  of  his  law,  and  to 
demonstrate  the  purity  and  impartial  rectitude  of  his  unchangea- 
ble nature. 

For  these  reasons  the  penalty  of  the  law  must  of  necessity  be 
inflicted  upon  all  criminals,  unless  the  ends  of  government  can  be 
secured,  and  the  divine  attributes  be  fully  and  clearly  manifested 
by  some  other  expedient.  Such  an  expedient  has  been  devised  by 
the  wisdom  of  God,  and  executed  by  his  goodness:  "For  God  so 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  havo  everlasting  life. 


154  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

He  could  have  vindicated  his  government  without  redeeming  ns, 
by  executing  the  sentence  upon  every  criminal.  If  God  had  not 
"  so  loved  the  world  as  to  give  his  only  begotten  son,  and  deliver 
him  np  for  us  all,"  the  conse(|Uciices  would  have  been,  that  every 
individiial  sinner  must  die  the  death,  or  suffer  the  dreadful  penal- 
ty. And  why  must  this  be  done.^  Not  to  minister  to  (he  Almighty's 
pleasure,  for  he  lias  declared,  and  confirmed  by  an  oath,  that  he 
has  "  no  pleasiire  in  the  death  of  the  wicked;"  but  to  seaire  the 
ivjluevce  of  the  government,  for  the  sake  of  the  general  ivelfare. 
And  how  would  this  have  been  secured  by  the  execution  of  every 
offender.^  Answer:  It  would  have  manifested  God's  regard  for 
righteousness  and  good  government:  It  would  have  manifested  the 
great  evil  of  sin,  and  its  hatefuiness  to  the  pure  eyes  of  the  Al- 
mighty: it  would  have  impressed  upon  the  obedient  part  of  the 
creation,  a  clear  conviction  of  the  strength  and  purity  of  God's 
unalterable  laws:  it  would  have  displayed  the  necessity  and  unut- 
terable felicity  of  a  cordial  obedience,  on  the  one  hand;  and  the 
tUreful  effects  of  rebellion  on  the  other:  hence  the  influence  of  their 
rebellion  upon  others  would  have  been  prevented,  the  divine  .at- 
tributes vindicated,  and  the  general  flow  of  happiness  secured. 
For  these  ends,  and  such  as  these,  is  punishment  inflicted  under 
anv  just  and  good  government  upon  earth:  and  I  hope  none  will 
impute  to  the  Creator  a  tyranny  that  is  execrated  among  mortals, 
and  which  is  shocking  to  conscience  and  contrary  to  revelation. 

Here,  then,  every  rebel -must  stand,  without  help,  and  without 
hope:  in  vain  may  he  repent,  pray,  or  make  confession;  because  the 
general  good  must  not  be  neglected  to  exercise  partiality  to  an  in- 
dividual. All  sinners  must  die,  unless  some  plan  can  be  devised  to 
magnify  the  law  in  their  deliverance  . 

But  can  the  rebels  devise  any  such  plan.-  AlasI  if  it  be  left  to 
them,  the  dye  is  cast  forever:  they  can  do  nothing  but  sink  still 
deeper  into  misery,  unless  some  kind  friend,  more  mighty  than 
they,  should  interest  himself  in  their  favour.  Can  such  a  friend  be 
found  among  all  the  armies  of  the  sky .^^  They  all  have  to  do  their 
own  individual  part  in  promoting  the  divine  glory,  and  cannot 
leave  their  own  work  to  ransom  another:  because  after  they  have 
done  all  that  they  can  do,  they  have  done  nothing  more  than  their 
duty:  consequently  each  one  for  himself  will  have  to  support  the 
government  by  obeying,  \>hile  the  rebels  will  have  to  do  it  by  suf- 
fering. Is  it  so,  then,  that  mercy  is  clean  gone  forever?  Has  the 
loving  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  ilesh  shut  up  his  tender  mer- 
cies in  eternal  displeasure!  Can  he  sec  his  poor  miserable  creatures 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  155 

mgulplied  in  the  horrors  of  insufferable  despair!  and  can  he  de- 
vise no  means  wliereby  his  banished  may  be  brought  back,  that 
they  may  not  be  irrecoverably  undone!  "  Will  he  be  pleased  with 
thousands  of  rams,  or  with  ten  thousand  rivers  of  oil?"  Alas!  all 
this  is  unavailing,  and  lighter  than  dust  upon  the  scale. 

But  the  Almighty  Father  waits  not  to  be  intreated;  "  he  has 
found  a  ransom,  and  has  laid  help  upon  one  that  is  mighty."  The 
Lord  exeeuteth  righteousness  and  judgment  for  all  that  are  op- 
pressed. The  Lord  is  merciful  and  gracious,  slow^  to  anger,  and 
plenteous  in  mercy.  He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our  sins,  nor 
rewarded  us  accoi'ding  to  our  iniquities.  For  God  so  love-d  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Sou,  that  whosoever  belicv- 
eth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God 
sent  not  his  Sou  into  the  world,  to  condemn  the  world,  but  tliat  the 
world  tlirough  him  might  he  saved."  Psalms,  eiii.  6,  &c.  John  iii.  16, 
17.  "  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid  down 
his  life  for  us;  In  this  was  manifested  the  love  of  God  toward  us, 
because  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we 
might  live  through  him.  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but 
that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins. 
And  we  have  seen,  and  do  testify,  that  the  Father  sent  the  Sou  to 
be  the  Saviour  of  the  world."  1.  John.  iii.  16. — iv.  9,  &c. 

It  is  evident  that  our  Saviour  did  not  die  to  supercede  the  neces- 
sity  ofpardoai,  by  giving  us  a  legal  discharge  from  all  penalties^ 
but  to  open  the  way  for  mercy,  to  deliver  all  those  from  suffering 
the  penalty,  who  come  boldly  (that  is,  believingly)  to  a  throne  of 
grace;  not  to  a  throne  oi  justice  to  sue  out  their  liberty  in  the  name 
of  their  surety: — but  that  they  might  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace 
to  help  in  time  of  need. 

The  death  of  Christ  manifested  God's  abhorrence  of  sin,  as  well 
as  his  love  to  the  sinner,  and  justilied  the  heavenly  government  in 
the  pardon  of  all  penitents,  as  well  as  it  would  have  been  done  if 
all  sinners  in  the  universe  had  been  forever  damned.  This  was  all 
mercy  was  waiting  for:  namely,  for  such  an  exposure  of  the  dread- 
ful evil  of  sin,  and  such  a  demonstration  of  God's  hatred  against  it, 
as  should  glorify  his  atti'ibutes,  and  restore  the  government  to  its 
native  dignity  and  influence  over  his  intelligent  creatures.  This 
was  accomplished  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  every 
moral  attribute  was  satisfied,  that  a  free  pardon  should  be  granted 
to  every  sinner  of  Adam's  race  (hat  would  receive  the  Saviour  for 
his  Lord  and  king,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  to  every  sinner 
that  would 


136  AN  ESSAV  ON  THE 

Yield  to  his  love's  redeeming  power 
And  fight  against  his  God  no  more. 

As  the  Father  never  was  disposed  to  punish  any  sinner,  merely 
to  minister  to  his  pleasure,  but  to  secure  the  ends  of  good  govern- 
ment; so  he  never  demanded  of  his  only  begotten  Son,  to  suffer  the 
whole  penalty  for  the  pleasure  of  his  vengeance;  but  he  was  so  lov- 
ing to  every  man,  that  rather  than  the  government  should  be  vin- 
dicated by  the  condemnation  of  the  guilty,  he  even  gave  his  own 
Son,  yea,  "  God  himself  was  manifested  in  the  flesh;  that  this  hu- 
man nature  connected  with  the  rfei/^,  should  expire  under  the  ex- 
cruciating agonies  of  the  cross,  that  poor  sinners  might  be  pardonx 
ed  in  such  a  way  as  should  support  the  honour  of  his  holy  law- 
God  could  have  chosen  the  other  alternative,  and  have  displayed 
his  holiness  and  hatred  against  sin,  by  the  damnation  of  the  crimi- 
nal; butlove  would  have  it  otherwise.  Rather  than  his  apostate 
creature  should  die  the  dreadful  death,  the  loving  God  himself 
comes  down  from  heaven!  He  hangs  between  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  a  spectacle  to  angels  and  to  men!  What  heart  of  stone — 
what  frozen,  savage  heart — can  remain  unmoved,  and  unconcern- 
ed at  such  melting  love  as  this? 

Shame  on  the  man  that  shall  itpresent  redempt  ion  as  having  its  seat 
in  the  satisfaction  and  gratification  of  unrelenting  vengeance,  while 
all  heaven  is  astonished  at  the  bleeding  mercy  it  displays!  Pro- 
phets, apostles,  and  angels  together  are  shouting  and  proclaiming 
the  great  love  wherewith  our  heavenly  Father  hath  loved  us;  and 
must  we  consider  him  as  a  tyrannical  and  malicious  being,  whose  fu- 
ry must  be  appeased,  by  an  infliction  of  the  whole  penalty  upon 
his  dear  Son,  before  he  will  agree  for  one  sinner  to  escape.''  far  be 
the  thought  from  every  soul  that  has  been  redeemed  by  the  blood 
of  Jesus!  Christ  died  to  open  our  way  to  mercy,  and  not  to  raise  us 
above  the  want  of  it. 

And  hence  the  great  name  proclaimed  unto  Moses  is  verified 
to  us:  ''gracious  and  merciful,  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  for- 
giving iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin." 

"Who  is  this  that  conieth  from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from 
Bozrah?  this  that  is  glorious  in  his  apparel,  travelling  in  the  great- 
ness of  his  strength?  I  that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save. 
Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  garments  like 
him  that  trcadeth  in  the  wine-fat?  I  have  trodden  the  wine-press 
alone;  and  of  the  people  there  was  none  with  me:  therefore  mine 
own  arm  brought  salvation  unto  me.  Fear  not;  for  thou  shalt  not 
be  ashamed:  for  thy  Maker  is  thine  husband;  the  Lord  of  hosts  is 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ±57 

his  name:  and  thy  Redeemer  the  Holy  One  of  Israel;  the  God  of 
the  whole  earth  shall  he  be  called.  The  Lord  is  well-pleased  for 
his  righteousness'  sake;  he  will  magnify  the  law  and  make  it  hon- 
ourable. 

For  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God:  being 
justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus;  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith 
in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God;  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time,  his  righteousness;  that  he  might  he  just  and  the  justifier 
of  him  which  belicveth  in  Jesus."  Isaiah,  Ixiii.  l.-Iiv.  4,  5. — 42.  21. 
Rom.  iii.  23.  Benee  it  follows  that  the  love  of  God  gave  a  Redeem- 
er to  open  the  way  for  his  ioxt  to  flow  to  poor  guilty  sinners;  and 
not  that  eternal  justice  demanded  him  as  a  criminal,  in  order  that 
grace  might  be  literally  purchased,  and  thus  bestow  its  favours 
for  the  sake  of  value  received. 

Was  God  waiting  for  his  goodness  to  be  bought  by  a  price  that 
should  be  exactly  equal  to  its  value.*^  Then  surely  he  was  waiting 
to  sell  his  grace,  and  have  a  literal  price  of  justice  paid  down,  that 
should  be  equivalent  to  every  degree  of  favour  or  benevolence  he 
should  exercise;  resolving  not  to  let  any  go  out  of  his  treasury 
without  an  entire  and  complete  compensation:  that  is,  in  other 
words,  he  resolved  not  to  exercise  any  grace  or  favour  at  all,  but 
merely  to  buy  and  sell,  according  to  a  literal  bargain,  and  the 
complete  standard  of  inflexible  justice.  It  may  indeed  be  objected, 
that  although  God  demanded  the  whole  penalty  before  he  could 
be  satisfied,  yet  his  grace  appears  to  full  advantage,  inasmuch  as 
it  was  God  himself  who  botlj  devised  the  plan  of  redemption  and 
executed  it,  without  being  under  any  obligation  to  do  so:  in  this  his 
goodness  appears  without  a  cloud,  and  there  is  no  necessity  for 
any  new  act  of  mercy  to  be  exercised  after  justice  is  satisfied,  be- 
cause it  was  sufficiently  displayed  before.  To  this  plausible  objec- 
tion I  would  answer: 

1.  That  it  was  God  who  both  devised  the  plan  of  redemption, 
and  executed  it,  is  readily  admitted;  and  therefore,  redemption  re- 
sulted from  his  goodness;  but  if  there  was  any  thing  done  in  the 
execution  of  this  plan,  wliich  God  in  justice  demanded,  and  then 
he  had  a  demand  upon  himself,  seeing  he  himself  performed  the 
thing  demanded,  as  the  objection  urges,(and  very  properly)  as  the 
only  proof  of  his  benevolence. 

2.  To  suppose  the  right  of  demand,  and  the  bond  of  obligation 
«an  exist  in  the  same  being,  so  that  he  who  claims  and  receives  is 

X 


188  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

absolutely  the  same  that  owes  and  «liscliarges  the  obligation, 
is  to  suppose  the  exercise  of  justice  is  a  solitary  operation 
that  depends  not  upon  the  relation  of  one  being  with  another:  it 
supposes  a  right  of  demand  in  one,  does  not  necessarily  imply  a 
corresponding  obligation  in  another,  but  that  the  claim  and  the 
obligation  maybe  in  himself  alone!  This,  to  me,  is  as  unintelligible 
as  to  say  a  man's  right  hand  has  a  demand  upon  his  left  hand, 
which  is  bound  by  moral  obligation  to  discharge  the  debt,  and  can- 
not refuse  it  without  being  unjust.  Suppose  there  should  be  a  re- 
fusal to  discharge  the  obligation;  we  must  then  say  one  person  is 
deprived  of  his  right,  and  another  having  acted  unjustly  has  for- 
feited his  right,  and  exposed  himself  to  a  penalty  in  proportion  to 
his  demerit;  andyetthe  injured  person,  and  the  aggressor,  the  just 
person  and  the  unjust;  the  aggrieved  person,  and  the  oftender,  are 
absolutely  the  same  individual:  in  other  words,  that  a  person  may 
be  just  and  unjust,  the  injured  and  the  violator,  an  innocent  suffer- 
er and  an  unrighteous  sinner,  at  the  same  time.  If  the  obligation 
be  not  discharged,  justice  is  violated,  and  the  unrighteous  person  is 
deserving  blame  in  proportion  to  his  criminality:  but  who  must  be 
blamed  or  punished  for  the  offence.?  Why,  truly,  the  injured  per- 
son himself,  for  there  is  no  other;  and  the  innocent  must  be  invol- 
ved with  the  guilty  by  absolute  necessity,  because  there  is  but  one 
individual,  and  he  is  guilty  and  innocent  at  the  same  time. 

3.  I  think  there  is  but  one  conceivable  way,  in  which  any  being, 
on  whom  there  is  no  previous  demand,  can  bind  himself  from  the 
dictate  of  benevolence;  and  that  is  by  jiromise.  It  is  supposed  in 
the  objection  that  it  w  as  a  matter  perfectly  voluntary  for  God  to 
assume  an  obligation  to  himself  in  our  favour;  that  he  had  a  right 
to  withhold  this  favour;  and  therefore,  though  he  demanded  the 
whole  debt,  yet  he  obligated  himself  to  discharge  it  to  himself, 
when  he  might  have  done  otherwise,  which  was  surely  a  great  dis- 
play of  mercy. 

Now  if  he  assumed  an  obligation  in  our  favour,  and  discharged 
it  according  to  his  just  demand,  he  graciously  condescended  to 
bind  himself,  which  could  only  be  done  by  promise,  covenant  or 
engagement. 

But  w'hat  conception  can  we  have,  in  a  consistency  with  com- 
mon sense,  of  a  person  binding  himself  by  promise,  covenant  or 
engagement  w  ith  himself  alone,  excepting  that  he  simply  resolves 
or  determines  to  do  that  for  the  sake  of  others,  which  he  is  under 
no  obligation  of  justice  to  do.?  And  is  it  indeed  true,  that  when  a 
person  kindly  determines  to  do  a  favour,  he  thereby  becomes  bound 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  IW 

in  a  debt  of  justice  to  himself,  Avhich  is  discharged  by  bestowing 
the  favour,  and  which  cannot  be  omitted  after  the  resolution  is 
formed,  without  a  plain  violation  of  justice?  If  so,  a  favour  was 
never  bestowed  in  the  universe;  for  it  is  impossible  it  should  be 
bestowed  until  there  be  a  volition  or  determination  to  bestow  it, 
and  that  volition  or  determination  is  supposed  to  bind'  the  agent  iu 
a  debt  of  justice,  and  of  course  the  act  of  bestowing  it,  which  is  a 
consequence  of  the  previous  determination,  is  only  a  discharge  of 
that  debt,  and  therefore  no  benevolence,  because  it  could  not  then 
be  withheld  without  a  violation  of  justice. 

But  if  a  resolution  to  bestow  a  favour  does  not  bind  the  agent 
by  moral  obligation,  then  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  l)ind  himself 
in  this  way  by  promise,  engagement  or  covenant,  unless  he  enter- 
ed inti 
alone. 

And  if  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  become  bound  in  a  debt  to 
himself,  then  Christ  never  came  under  an  obligation  of  justice  to 
God,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  Christ  is  not  God,  or  that  there 
are  tuw  Gods,  so  totally  separate  that  one  maybe  bound  in  a  debt 
of  justice  to  the  other. 

4-.  Suppose  there  were  two  such  Gods,  we  say  it  is  the  Father 
whose  law  has  been  violated  by  sinners:  the  Father  is  our  God,  un- 
der whose  government  we  stand  responsible.  If  then  the  Father 
inflexibly  demanded  the  penalty  to  the  very  last  mite,  and  the  Son 
obligated  himself  to  discharge  it,  the  Son  only  has  shown  favour 
to  us,  and  our  proper  sovereign,  who  demanded  a  penalty  of  us  as 
the  subjects  of  his  government,  has  exercised  no  mercy  towards 
us;  and  consequently  our  obligations  of  gratitude  for  redemption 
are  confined  and  due  to  the  Son  alone.  Here  it  will  perhaps  be 
said,  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one:  I  grant  they  are;  and  this 
is  the  foundation  of  my  argument;  but  the  sophistry  I  am  oppos- 
ing, first,  supposes  them  to  be  two  Gods,  so  separate  and  indepen- 
dent of  each  other,  as  to  stand  in  the  relation  of  debtor  and  credi- 
tor; but  after  the  contract  is  made  and  executed,  my  ingenious  op- 
ponent abandons  his  old  ground,  and,  in  order  to  secure  a  part  of 
the  benevolence,  and  the  corresponding  gratitude  to  the  Father, 
he  tells  us  very  gravely  that  Christ  and  God  are  one. 

5.  Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  the  Father's  benevolence  appears  in 
this,  that  he  both  provided  Christ  as  a  substitute  for  sinners,  and 
accepted  him  in  our  place,  when  he  ^•  as  not  bound  to  do  so.  I  an- 
swer, first,  if  he  provided  himself  for  our  Redeemer  it  was  indeed 
benevolent;  but  in  that  case  he  did  not  become  bound,  or  demand 


16U  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

a  penalty  from  himself,  as  has  just  been  evinced.  Second:  if  he 
provided  Christ,  as  another  being,  and  an  innocent  one,  to  be  con- 
demned and  executed  in  the  place  of  the  guilty,  vvhat  right  had  he 
to  do  so?  If  it  is  right  to  release  a  sinner  by  condemning  and  pun- 
ishing an  innocent  person  in  his  place,  then  surely  it  would  be 
right  for  Satan  to  be  released  from  hell,  provided  an  innocent  an- 
gel were  condemned  and  sent  there  in  his  place.  Does  benevo- 
lence consist  in  showing  favour  to  one  by  violating  the  rights  of 
another?  But  Christ,  you  say,  consented  willingly  to  be  offered  up. 
That  he  never  consented  to  become  a  sinner,  or  to  become  guilty 
by  imputation,  I  hope  to  prove  in  another  place.  But  granting, 
for  the  sake  of  argun^ent,  that  he  consented  to  it;  still  the  whole  of 
the  benevolence  was  in  him  alone,  because  the  right  of  option  to 
grant  the  favour  or  withhold  it,  was  in  him  and  in  no  other.  The 
Father,  it  is  supposed,  was  determined  to  show  no  mercy,  but  in- 
flexibly to  demand  the  whole  penalty:  Christ  was  not  bound  to  en- 
dure it  in  our  place,  and  the  Father  had  no  right  to  inflict  it  on 
Jiim  against  his  will:  therefore,  our  receiving  any  benefit,  or  not 
receiving  any,  depended  on  the  voluntary  goodness  of  Christ  alone, 
and  consequently  to  him  only  we  are  under  obligations  of  gratitude 
for  any  favour  shown  us  in  redemption. 

The  only  remaining  subterfuge  is,  that  the  Father  was  gracious 
in  accepting  the  substitute,  when  he  was  not  bound  to  do  it.  But 
a  few  plain  questions  will  remove  this  superficial  vail:  first,  had 
Christ  a  riglit  to  discharge  our  obligation?  Second,  had  the  Fa- 
ther a  right  to  any  more  than  our  obligation?  was  not  our  obliga- 
tion the  very  thing  which  he  had  a  right  to  demand?  If  so,  when 
Christ  discharged  our  obligation,  which  he  had  a  right  to  do,  the 
Father  had  no  more  demand  against  us,  and  we  were  immediately 
as  free  from  all  just  penalties  and  from  any  need  of  pardon  as 
the  unoffending  angels  of  heaven.  Say  Christ  had  no  right  to  dis- 
charge the  obligation  or  suffer  llie  penalty  for  us,  and  you  declare 
it  to  be  unjust:  say  he  had  a  right,  and  you  affirm  the  Father  was 
bound  to  demand  no  more,  and  to  accept  that  or  nothing;  otherwise 
you  make  justice  contradict  itself,  by  supposing  one  being  has  a 
right  to  forbid  what  another  has  a  previous  right  to  do.  To  say 
the  Father  may  demand  more,  after  my  surety  has  paid  all  that 
is  due,  is  to  suppose  he  has  a  right  to  more  than  his  due,  which  is 
a  contradiction. 

Thus  1  think  the  objection  is  fairly  and  honestly  answered,  and 
that  the  Antinomian  scheme  of  atonement  supposes  God  to  be  to- 
tally destitute  of  mercy, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  lei 

As  to  the  alarm  that  may  have  been  excited,  lest  I  should  deny 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  I  hope  it  will  be  removed  in  the  follow- 
ing section. 


SECTION  IV. 

^in  examination  of  two  opposite  prejudices,  founded  upon  mystery. 

Infidels  will  be  apt  to  object  that  the  preceding  view  of  the 
subject  is  still  too  unintelligible  and  mysterious,  that  it  is  hard  to 
see  why  the  divine  attributes  must  be  displayed  by  a  redeemer, 
and  how  this  was  done  by  the  death  of  Christ  upon  the  cross.  I  sus- 
pect some  christians  will,  on  the  contrary,  think  it  too  plain,  and 
that  it  savours  too  much  of  an  attempt  to  explain  away  the  divine 
mysteries.  1  wish  to  convince  these  opponents  that  two  opposite 
prejudices,  and  not  reason  or  revelation,  are  the  foundation  of 
their  objections. 

The  deist  will  say  he  is  not  yet  satisfied  with  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  or  satisfaction  for  sins;  because,  though  this  scheme  ap- 
pears less  mysterious  than  some  others,  yet  the  mystery  is  not  en- 
tirely removed,  and  he  is  resolved  to  believe  nothing  that  he  can- 
not comprehend.  I  answer: 

It  is  true  we  cannot  have  a  complete  comprehension  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  all  the  various  effects  revealed  in  the  scriptures  are 
produced  by  the  death  of  Jesus;  but  in  this  respect  it  is  like  every 
thing  else  in  the  creation,  from  the  growth  of  a  vegetable  to  the 
operations  of  our  intellectual  faculties. 

If  nothing  can  be  proved  to  us  till  we  are  able  completely  to 
comprehend  it,  then  surely  it  is  impossible  to  prove  to  a  child,  that 
there  are  such  things  in  being  as  watches  and  ships,  till  he  is  able 
to  understand  every  part  of  them  exactly:  and  he  ought  not  to  be- 
lieve us,  but  consider  us  as  liars,  whenever  we  affirm  and  attempt 
to  prove  their  existence,  because  it  would  be  to  believe  a  thing 
which  he  cannot  comprehend. 

An  astronomer  declares  he  can  tell  the  very  minute  when  the 
sun  will  be  eclipsed:  accordingly,  he  publishes  to  the  world,  months 
or  years  before-hand,  the  precise  minute  when  the  eclipse  will 
take  place:  we  open  our  eyes  and  see  it  come  to  pass  at  the  very 


^62  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

time  foretold.  Now  there  is  no  man  of  common  understanding  but 
will  allow  the  astronomer  in  this  case  gives  sufficient  evidence 
that  he  can  foresee  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies;  yet  not  one 
man  in  ten  thousand  is  able  to  comprehend  how  these  things  can 
be  known  by  men.  The  common  people  then  ought  to  give  philoso- 
phers the  lie,  according  to  the  deistical  method  of  reasoning,  and 
disregard  all  evidence  they  can  produce  in  support  of  any  fact, 
until  they  can  clearly  and  fully  comprehend  the  manner  of  it. 

Mystery  is  no  criterion  either  of  truth  or  falsehood:  our  belief 
should  be  governed  by  evidence.  And  when  any  principle  is  pre- 
sented to  us  as  a  truth,  its  being  incomprehensible  is  no  argument 
for  or  against  it.  Suppose  a  man  tells  me  he  saw  a  company  of 
men  and  women  not  more  than  five  inches  high:  I  can  comprehend 
this  as  well  as  if  they  were  five  feet  high;  but  it  would  be  foolish 
for  me  to  believe  it  merely  because  the  thing  is  conceivable:  I 
must  have  evidence  of  the  fact.  1  turn  my  attention  to  this  propo- 
sition: "  God  npholdeth  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power."  Now 
I  find  it  impossible  for  me  to  comprehend  hoAV  this  is  done;  but  it 
is  just  as  foolish  to  disbelieve  it,  because  I  cannot  comprehend  it, 
as  to  believe  the  other  because  I  can  comprehend  it.  In  this  case 
as  in  the  former,  I  call  for  evidence:  and  upon  reflection  I  find  it 
supported  by  all  the  evidence  of  reason  and  revelation.  I  find  if  I 
disbelieve  it,  I  not  only  embrace  a  greater  mystery,  but  am  invol- 
ved in  absurdities  shocking  to  every  rational  principle  of  my  na- 
ture. It  is  pli«n,  therefore,  that  a  man  whose  belief  is  governed  by 
the  pretended  criterion  of  mystery,  is  governed  by  prejudice  and 
not  by  reason.  As  to  the  difficulty  of  conceiving  why  Christ  must 
suffer,  and  how  divine  justice  is  satisfied  thereby  for  man  to  be  for- 
given,  it  shall  be  considered  in  another  place. 

Some  christians  will  probably  think  we  ought  to  be  very  care- 
ful how  we  explain  away  the  divine  mysteries,  or  before  we  are 
aware  we  shall  find  ourselves  landed  on  the  shores  of  infidelity.  I 
saw  a  small  pamphlet  once,  the  express  design  of  which  was  to 
show  that  an  attempt  to  avoid  mysteries  led  a  person  ( l.)from Cal- 
vinism to  Arminianism;  (2.)  from  Arminianism  to  Arianism;(3.)  from 
Arianism  to  Soeinianism;  (4.)  from  Socinianism  to  Deism:  so  that 
the  only  true  system  was  that  of  absolute  election  and  reprobation. 
The  Arminians,  it  seems,  who  could  not  swallow  all  the  mysteries 
of  free-wrath,  were  the  men  who  took  the  first  step  towards  infi- 
delity. The  pope  will  tell  us  Luther  was  the  man  who  first  depart- 
ed from  the  holy  mysteries;  and  will  be  able  to  carry  on  the  chain 
with  as  good  a  grace  as  tlve  Rev.  Divine  who  published  the  pam- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  163 

phlet  above  alluded  to;  he  will  also  class  John  Calvin  and  his  fol- 
lowers among  the  heretics  who  paved  the  way  to  infidelity  and 
atheism. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  inquire  how  far  such  cautions  are  rea- 
sonable, and  when  they  may  be  considered  the  result  of  partiality 
and  prejudice. 

1.  As  to  the  principle,  that  men  ought  to  believe  nothing  but 
what  they  can  comprehend,  we  grant,  if  constantly  pursued,  this 
would  make  a  fool  of  any  man:  he  would  not  stop  at  infidelity;  he 
would  not  stop  at  atheism;  for  surely  no  man  of  common  sense  will 
say  that  atheism  is  a  principle  that  has  no  mystery  in  it:  it  is  ful- 
ly as  mysterious  as  popery.  In  vain  may  a  man  run  to  universal  scep- 
ticism for  a  cure:  this  is  as  full  of  mystery  as  atheism  itself.  There 
is  no  stoppipg  place  for  such  a  person  but  perfect  lunacy;  he  may 
wander  from  one  mystery  to  another  till  he  is  distracted,  and  that 
will  terminate  his  fantastical  career. 

2.  It  is  granted  also  that  there  is  great  danger  and  absurdity  in 
a  man's  labouring  to  comprehend  that  which  is  incomprehensible. 
It  is  a  shameful  abuse  of  our  understanding  to  spend  that  time  ia 
fruitless  attempts  to  comprehend  a  subject  of  this  kind,  that  ought 
to  be  spent  in  searching  into  the  evidence  of  its  truth.  For  exam- 
ple: I  sit  down  to  consider  this  proposition:  "  God  is  an  eternal  be- 
ing, who  had  no  beginning."  Now  if,  instead  of  examining  the 
evidence  of  this  truth,  I  spend  ray  time  in  fruitless  labour  to  un- 
derstand the  nature  of  infinite  duration,  I  shall  gain  nothing  by 
the  pursuit,  but  bewilder  myself,  and  stupify  my  intellectual  fa- 
culties. But  if  I  leave  the  manner  of  God's  existence  out  of  view, 
as  a  matter  beyond  the  grasp  of  my  understanding,  and  merely  stu- 
dy the  evidence  of  an  eternal  being,  nothing  can  be  more  clear  and 
satisfactory  than  this  truth,  that  the  first  cause  must  be  eternal 
and  independent.  Infinite  duration  is  as  incomprehensible  as  any 
subject  whatever;  yet  the  evidence  of  it  is  equal  to  demonstration: 
for,  to  say  there  was  a  pei'iod  of  duration,  in  which  duration  had 
no  existence,  or  that  there  was  a  time  when  there  was  no  time,  is 
an  absolute  contradietion;andif  contradictions  maybe  received,  de- 
monstration and  every  other  kind  of  evidence  must  fall  to  the 
ground. 

3.  As  it  is  unreasonable  on  the  one  hand  to  follow  the  deist  in 
rejecting  a  doctrine  because  of  its  mystery;  it  is  equally  so  on  the 
other  to  follow  the  pope  in  believing  it  merely  because  it  is  mys- 
terious. As  all  truth  is  supported  by  evidence,  we  have  as  good  a 
right  to  examine  the  evidence  that  may  appear  for  or  against  an 


i64  x\N  ESSAY  ON  THE 

incomprehensible  doctrine,  as  any  other  principle  in  the  world. 
But  when  we  reject  a  doctrine  because  it  charges  God  with  being 
a  barbarous  tyrant,  some  will  cunningly  observe,  that  we  reject  it 
on  account  of  its  mystery.  We  reject  it  because  it  is  condemned  by 
the  force  of  evidence;  all  the  evidence  of  reason  and  revelation 
conducts  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  God  is  a  being  possessed  of  all 
moral  excellence,  and  that  there  is  no  immoral  principle  in  his 
nature.  Any  opinion  which  absolutely  contradicts  this,  ought  to  be 
rejected,  however  some  may  artfully  pass  it  upon  the  world  as  a 
holy  mystery.  Shortly  after  the  synod  of  Dort  it  was  openly  pub- 
lished to  the  world,  "  that  there  is  a  kind  of  holy  simulation  in 
God,"  and  that  God  absolutely  created  most  men  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose  of  "illustrating  his  glory  by  their  damnation."  Popish  priests 
had  before  been  burning  men  to  death  by  hundreds,  and  this  mer- 
ciless barbarity  they  called  an  act  of  faith,  a  holy  mystery  that 
must  never  be  examined  or  called  in  question,  upon  pain  of  damna- 
tion. If  any  good  meaning  people  should  think  it  dangerous  for 
us  to  get  rid  of  such  mysteries  as  these,  I  should  be  glad  to  know 
upon  what  evidence  they  adhere  to  such  a  conclusion. 

4.  Another  set  of  doctrines  which  are  called  mysterious,  are 
those  which  involve  plain  and  absolute  contradictions.  If  we  re- 
ject them  because  we  cannot  force  ourselves  to  receive  contradic- 
tions, it  is  said  we  refuse  to  believe  mysteries.  It  is  said  we  go 
upon  the  deistical  method  of  reasoning,  that  we  will  receive  no- 
thing which  we  cannot  comprehend,  and  that  a  few  s^eps  more  will 
conduct  us  to  open  infidelity.  This  is  surely  a  great  compliment 
to  the  deists,  that  they  are  the  only  people  in  the  world  who  are 
consistent  with  themselves!  I,  for  one,  cannot  help  thinking  they 
do  not  merit  such  high  praise;  but  that  in  truth  their  system  is 
Very  inconsistent.  If  my  oI)jector  think  otherwise,  it  seems  to  me 
to  follow,  that  his  sentiment  paves  the  way  to  infidelity  far  more 
than  mine. 

If  absolute  contradictions  may  be  received,  we  need  not  take 
the  slow  method  of  going  from  Calvinism  to  Arminianism,  from 
that  to  Arianism,  &c.  butwe  may  at  one  step  incorporate  deism  and 
Christianity  together,  for  we  may  receive  this  contradiction:  the 
scriptures  are  true;  but  the  scriptures  are  false:  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
son  of  God;  but  Jesus  Christ  is  nothing  but  an  impostor.  These 
propositions  are  nothing  more  than  contradictions,  and  if  they 
may  be  received,  it  is  an  easy  thing  for  us  to  be  believers  and  un- 
believers, pious  and  impious,  righteous  and  unrighteous,  christians 
and  infidels  at  the  same  time. 


P^AN  OF  SALVATION  165 

But  a  mystery,  it  will  be  said,  may  have  the  appearance  of  a 
contradiction,  when  in  truth  it  is  entirely  consistent;  only  we  are 
unable  to  comprehend  it,  so  as  to  prove  or  explain  its  consistency. 
This  I  grant;  and  if  it  cannot  be  shown  to  be  really  inconsistent; 
but  on  the  contrary,  can  be  supported  by  clear  and  good  evidence, 
it  would  indeed  be  very  absurd  to  reject  it,  merely  because  it  may 
have  the  appearance  of  contradiction. 

But  still  there  is  no  more  danger  in  examining  such  a  subject, 
than  tkere  is  in  scrutinizing  any  other,  provided  we  be  governed 
by  evidence  in  our  researches,  and  not  by  prejudice.  An  appa- 
rent contradiction  can  never  be  converted  into  a  real  one;  but  on 
the  contrary,  if  it  be  really  consistent  in  itself,  the  better  it  is 
understood,  the  more  obvious  will  its  consistency  appear;  because 
the  reason  why  it  seems  contradictory,  is,  that  we  have  such  a  par- 
tial understanding  of  it. 

.  As  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  some  are  fond  to  consi- 
der as  an  absolute  contradiction,  it  is  as  clear  of  the  charge  as  any 
other  truth,  provided  we  regulate  our  views  of  it  by  the  scriptures, 
without  recurring  to  the  laboured  explications  of  it  that  are  to  be 
found  in  human  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith. 

The  following  plain  scripture  argument,  from  Dr.  Watts,  sup- 
ports the  proper  notion  of  it,  if  I  mistake  not,  as  we  find  it  stated 
in  the  oracles  of  God: 

"  Since  there  is  but  one  Crvd,  even  the  Father,  according  to  St. 
Paul,  and  since  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God,  according  to 
Christ's  own  expression,  then  the  Son  and  Spirit  cannot  have 
another  or  a  difterent  God-head  from  that  of  the  Father:  but  since 
the  Son  and  Spirit  also  are  true  God,  it  must  be  by  some  commu- 
nion in  the  same  true  God-head  which  belongs  to  the  Father:  for 
if  it  were  another  God-head,  that  would  make  another  God;  and 
thus  Uie  Christian  religion  would  have  two  or  three  Gods,  which 
is  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  gospel." — Watts'  Sermons, 
vol.  ii.  page  447. 

But  lest  Dr.  Watts  should  be  suspected  of  leaning  towards  the 
Socinians,  let  us  recur  to  another  authority:  1  mean  to  that  of  Mr. 
Fletcher,  who  was  never  suspected  of  heterodoxy  concerning  this 
article: 

«  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands,"  says  he,  "that  the  Supreme  Being 
(compared  with  all  other  beings)  is  one:  one  Creator  over  number- 
less creatures:  one  Infinite  Being  over  myriads  of  finite  beings:  one 
Eternal  Intelligence  over  millions  of  temporary  intelligence§.  In 
this  sense,  true  christians  are  all  unitarians. 

y 


les  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

"  But  if  the  Supreme  Being  is  one,  when  he  is  compared  to  all 
created  beings,  shall  we  quarrel  with  him,  if  he  informs  us,  that, 
although  he  hath  no  second  in  the  universe  of  creatures,  yet,  in 
himself,  he  exists  after  a  wonderful  manner,  insomuch  that  his  one 
eternal,  and  perfect  essence  subsists,  ivithout  division  or  separa- 
tion, \im\erthyee  adorable  distinctions,  which  arc  called  sometimes 
the  Father,  the  Son,  andthe  Holy  Ghost;  and  sometimes,  the  Father^ 
the  JFord, andthe  Spirit?  Shall  thethingformed  say  tohim  that  formed 
it,  why  hast  thou  made  inef/msi^orwhy  dost  thou  exist  after  such  a 
manner? 

"  Three  sorts  of  people,  in  our  days,  capitally  err  in  this  matter: 

"  1.  Tritheists,  of  the  worshippers  of  three  Gods,  who  so  un- 
scripturally  distinguish  the  Divine  Persons,  as  to  divide  and  sepa- 
rate them  into  three  Deities;  and  who,  by  this  means,  run  into  Fo- 
lijtJieism,  or  the  belief  of  many  Gods. 

"  2.  Detlieists,  or  the  worshippers  of  two  Gods.  They  are  gene- 
rally called  Avians,  from  Jirius,  iheW  chief  leader,  who  maintain- 
ed tliat  there  is  one  eternal  God,  namely,  the  Father,  and  one  who 
is  not  eternal,  namely,  the  Son,  who  was  made  sometime  or  other 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Thus  they  m  orship  two  Gods, 
a  great  God  and  a  little  God. 

"  Never  did  we  say  or  think,  either  that  three  persons  are  one 
person,  or  that  three  Gods  are  one  God:  these  contradictions  ne- 
ver disgraced  our  creeds.  We  only  maintain  that  the  one  Divine 
Essence  manifests  itself  to  us  in  thi'ee  Divine  Subsistencies,  most 
intimately  joined,  and  absolutely  inseparable:  with  the  scripture 
we  assert,  that,as  these  subsistencies  bore  each  a  particular  part  in 
our  creation,  so  they  areparticularly  engaged  in  the  securing  of  our 
eternal  hapj»iness;  the  Father  ch'mRy  planning,  the  Son  chiefly  eX' 
ecuting,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  chiefly  perfecting,  the  great  work  of 
«nr  new  creation."  See  Fletcher'' s  ^^Rational  Vindication,^^  Sfc, 
in  answer  to  Priestly,  revised  and  finished  by  Mr.  Joseph  Benson. 
London  edition,  l7U0.  vol.  i.  p.  33,  31,  35. 

Mr.  Fletcher  has  here  exhibited  the  full  mystery  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  according  to  the  scriptures:  and  in  this  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction. 

But  in  certain  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith,  there  appears  ta 
be  another  turn  given  to  the  subject.  We  may  there  find  many 
learned  words  of  divinity,  concerning  an  eternal  generation  —a 
covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son — a  purchase  made  by 
tjhc  son,  of  a  certain  number  of  souls — the  Father's  obligation  to 
see  that  the  Son  be  not  defrauded  of  his  purchased  property,  and 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  167 

the  like.     We  may  there  read  coneerning  very  God  of  very  God~-^ 
co-eqjial — co-e.vistent — co-eternal — consubstantiaJ,  &e.  &ce. 

The  plain  word  of  God  gives  better  iustrnetion  concerning  this 
matter  than  those  learned  names,  and  all  the  others  that  have  been 
used  in  the  sublime  and  orthodox  theology.  It  teaches  us  that 
God  is  an  eternal  Being,  and  that  there  are  three  that  bear  record 
in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit,  and  these  three 
<ire  one:  but  ''never  did  we  say  or  think,  either  that  three  persons 
are  one  person,  or  that  three  Gods  are  one  God:  these  contradic- 
tions never  disgraced  our  creeds." 

Beists  appear  to  manifest  a  fondness,  in  representing  the  chris- 
tian doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  a  contradiction;  but  we  defy  them 
to  show  any  contradiction  in  the  account  here  given  by  Mr.  Fletcher, 
or  to  evince  that  it  contains  any  more  mystery  than  many  things 
in  nature  which  they  are  forced  to  acknowledge  as  true.  1  sus- 
pect they  are  unwilling  we  should  explain  our  views  in  this  way, 
because  it  deprives  them  of  the  argument  ad  hominem,  by  which 
they  have  long  laboured  to  involve  us  in  contradictions. 

And  are  some  christians  unwilling  the  matter  should  be  believ- 
ed in  this  way?  Do  they  wish  something  to  be  added,  that  may 
give  it  more  the  appearance  of  a  contradiction.^  For  what.'*  Do 
they  really  believe  it  is  a  contradiction.^  or  do  they  wish  it  to  be 
clothed  with  such  an  appearance,  as  much  as  possible,  in  order 
that  others  may  believe  so.^  Is  it  then  true,  that  any  professed 
christians  wish  deists  to  have  full  opportunity  to  prove  out  of  our 
own  mouths,  that  Christianity  is  founded  upon  contradiction?  I 
hope  they  have  not  entered  into  a  secret  combination  against  the 
religion  of  Jesus,  to  contribute  secretly  to  the  designs  of  infidels, 
and  to  expose  Christianity  under  pretence  of  supporting  it;  and 
how  else  some  human  creeds  are  to  be  accounted  for,  seems  hard 
to  ascertain. 

Is  it  supposed  that  an  attempt  to  explain  the  mysteries  of  th^ 
gospel  naturally  leads  to  infidelity.^'  I  hope  an  attempt  to  explain 
them,  so  far  as  to  prove  they  are  not  contradictions,  has  no  such 
tendency.  To  affirm  it,  is  to  acknowledge  at  once  that  they  ari 
contradictions;  for,  what  danger  can  there  be  i'l  attempting  to 
prove  a  doctrine  is  not  inconsistent  with  itself,  except  it  be  that 
the  charge  is  just,  and  that  there  is  no  way  to  keep  it  from  being 
proved  a  falsehood,  but  to  keep  it  from  ever  being  teen  in  a  clear 
light? 


16^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

I  cannot  help  thinking  those  mistaken  christians,  vho  so  rt- 
peatedly  caution  us  against  paving  the  way  to  deism,  uould  do 
M'ell  to  consider  whether  they  themselves  be  not  more  guilty  of  it 
than  these  of  whom  they  complain. 

Let  us  suppose,  first,  that  a  person  a  little  inclined  to  infidelity, 
is  sincerely  desirous  to  know  the  truth:  he  comes  to  an  old  Catho- 
lic christian,  Avhom  he  finds  with  his  creed  in  his  hand,  to  obtain 
some  instruction.  He  asks,  what  are  the  fundamentals  of  Chris- 
tianity? The  christian  presents  him  the  creed  for  an  answer.  He 
looks  it  over,  and  asks  his  friend  how  those  doctrines  are  to  be 
made  consistent  with  themselves:  they  appear  to  be  palpable  con- 
tradictions. Suppose,  his  instructor  to  reply:  Sir,  it  is  against  my 
principle  to  attempt  any  explanation  of  these  mysteries:  that  would 
be  paving  the  way  to  infidelity.  They  may  be  proved  by  several 
passages  of  scripture,  as  explained  by  our  divines,  and  you  must 
receive  them  just  as  you  find  them.  It  is  dangerous  for  yoH  to  med- 
dle with  these  sacred  things,  by  yonr  uncertain  reason;  and  yon 
must  be  cautious  how  yon  indulge  your  metaphysical  investigations 
upon  the  evidence  of  Christianity  in  general,  or  its  mysterious  doc- 
trines in  particular.  Let  the  gospel  be  its  own  witness,  and  take 
the  doctrines  of  it,  as  you  find  them  in  this  creed,  without  attempt- 
ing to  make  them  any  plainer, 

J^ow  what  must  the  inquirer  infer  from  all  this?  Must  he  not 
conclude  that  his  instructor  wishes  to  prevail  Avith  him,  as  openly 
as  he  dare  venture  to  go,  to  believe  that  he  ought  to  take  the  whole 
for  granted  >vithnut  examination?  ^'Does  my  teacher  really  believe, 
says  he,  that  vve  ought  to  receive  Christianity  without  evidence? 
qr  does  he  hjmself  secretly  suspect  that  it  is  not  founded  in  truth, 
fl.nd  therefore  thinks  it  dangerous  to  examine,  lest  its  falsehood 
shpuld  become  too  manifest?  Does  he  really  think  a  doctrine  of 
divinity  ought  to  contradict  itself?  or  does  he  think  the  christian 
dpctrjnes  are  in  fact  a  system  of  contradictions,  and  therefore 
fishes  me  to  lay  by  my  reason,  and  cautiously  avoid  looking  into 
^hem,  for  fear  their  absurdity  and  inconsistency  should  so  shock 
my  understanding,  that  I  could  nqt  believe  them  without  doing  vio- 
lence to  commoQ  sense?" 

These  would  be  his  reflections;  and  let  the  reader  judge  whether 
the  instructions  he  received  do  not  afford  a  plain  presumption  that 
their  author  had  a  secret  suspicion,  either  that  the  religion  of  Jfsu« 
e^nnot  bear  examination,  or  that  the  doctrines  of  his  creed  may 
pradventure  be  proved  not  to  belong  to  that  religion. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  160 

Secondly,  let  us  consider  the  proud  and  passionate  deist,  who., 
from  the  dictate  of  his  malice  against  Christianity,  is  resolved  at 
all  events  that  he  will  not  believe  it:  What  paves  the  way  to  this 
kind  of  infidelity?  I  think  it  is  done  by  the  conduct  of  those  very 
persons,  who  affect  to  be  such  friends  to  religion,  and  who  are  so 
apt  to  charge  others  with  secret  disafl'ection  to  the  gospel. 

First,  they  directly  or  indirectly  discourage  the  full  attention  of 
the  mind  in  reasoning  and  diligent  examination;  but  it  is  the  want 
of  such  attention,  or  a  refusal  to  examine,  that  confirms  this  per- 
son in  his  unbelief;  therefore  they  encourage  him  in  the  course  he 
pursues. 

Secondly,  they  discourage  a  candid  and  impartial  examination, 
otherwise  they  would  be  willing  for  their  mysteries  to  be  examin- 
ed, as  well  as  other  matters;  but  a  want  of  candour  and  impar- 
tiality is  the  cause  of  this  person's  unbelief;  therefore  they  encou- 
rage him  in  that  which  is  the  cause  of  his  infidelity,  by  setting  the 
example  themselves. 

Thirdly,  they  furnish  this  enemy  of  the  gospel  with  very  plau- 
sible arguments,  with  which  he  slays  his  thousands,  and  diffuses 
scepticism  among  his  associates. 

"  You  cannot  be  christians,  says  he,  without  renouncing  your 
reason,  and  this  the  professors  of  that  religion  very  well  know,  as 
you  may  see  by  their  writings:  they  are  perpetually  cautioning 
their  votaries  against  the  diligent  exercise  of  their  intellectual 
faculties,  which  they  call  carnal  reason  and  "the  almost  magical 
power  of  metaphysical  distinctions.  Some  of  their  dearest  and 
most  beloved  doctrines  are  plain  contradictions,  which  they  them- 
selves cannot  deny;  for  when  we  ask  them  to  explain  the  matter, 
and  clear  their  dogmas  of  this  charge,  they  gravely  answer,  that 
these  are  holy  mysteries,  which  it  is  wicked  to  pry  into,  even  so 
far  as  to  make  them  consistent  with  themselves.  It  is  very  dan- 
gerous, they  say,  to  penetrate  too  deeply  into  those  sacred  mat- 
ters, which  they  call  bringing  them  to  the  profane  eye  of  human 
reason:  a  clear  presumption,  surely,  that  they  have  discovered  the 
sandy  foundation  of  this  system,  and  wish  to  silence  all  inquiry, 
for  fear  others  should  make  the  same  discovery." 

Now  permit  me  to  ask,  how  are  we  to  prevent  the  spreading  of 
infidelity,  arising  from  the  influence  of  buch  specious  arguments? 
By  filling  our  works  with  ridiculous  cautions  against  a  close  ex- 
amination of  the  christian  doctrines,  and  thus  evincing  in  the  face 
of  the  sun  that  the  gentleman's  premises  are  true?  I  presume  we 
fiQuld  do  nothing  that  would  please  him  better.  From  the  first  rise 


iro  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

of  popery  to  the  present  day,  some  professors  seem  to  dread  the 
approach  of  reason,  and  deists  are  glad  to  have  it  so:  They  know 
it  furnishes  them  with  the  best  arguments  they  have  ever  been  able 
to  use,  and  were  it  torn  from  them,  infidelity  must  sneak  into  a 
corner.  While  divines  continue  to  undervalue  reason,  the  deist 
will  extol  it  to  the  skies:  not  because  he  has  any  more  real  attach- 
ment to  it  than  his  adversary;  but  because  he  knows  that  while  he 
can  keep  up  high  notions  of  reason,  and  prove  from  the  words  and 
writings  of  divines  that  they  are  afraid  of  it,  he  needs  no  better  ar- 
gument, and  none  which  will  more  successfully  contribute  to  the 
support  of  infidelity. 

But  let  reason  be  delivered  from  the  shackles  of  metaphysical 
sophistry  and  hypotheses:  let  common  sense  be  permitted  to  appear 
without  a  veil:  let  pride,  prejudice  and  party  attachments  have 
nothing  to  do  in  governing  the  belief  of  mankiad:  and  then  let  rea- 
son take  her  stand  upon  self-evident  principles,  without  any  thing 
to  obstruct  her  operations:  you  will  see  infidels  and  popish  doctors 
of  divinity  alike  retiring  from  the  contest,  or  labouriug  with  all 
their  might  to  cast  dust  into  the  air,  that  they  may  hinder  the  rays 
of  evidence  from  shining  on  the  world. 

Let  all  men  thus  use  their  reason,  and  the  religion  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  will  rise  like  the  suninthe  midst  of  heaven, and  chase 
the  dark  mists  of  error  from  mankind.  But  we  cannot  answer  for  all 
the  creeds:  I  suspect  some  of  them  would  stand  exposed  in  all  their 
deformity,  and  perhaps  a  secret  conviction  of  their  being  subject 
to  it,  has  given  rise  to  that  species  of  prudence  which  is  so  neces- 
sary to  the  support  of  a  tenet  which  cannot  bear  examination, 
*'Those  things  are  against  reason,  and  utterly  inconceivable;"  says 
Dr.  William  Bates,  "that  involve  a  contradiction;  and  there  is  no 
such  doctrine  in  the  christian  religion."  See  Bates  on  Man's  Re- 
demption, page  136. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  in 


SECTION  V. 

The  doctrine  of  redemption  stated  in  the  words  of  several  respect- 
able authors, 

Mr.  Baxter,  and  Mr.  Wesley  agree  (the  latter  having  ex- 
tracted the  words  of  the  former,)  that  "  men  who  are  condition- 
ally pardoned  and  justified,  may  be  unpardoned  and  unjustified 
again  for  their  non-performance  of  the  conditions,  and  all  the 
debt  so  forgiven  be  required  at  their  hands;  and  all  this  without 
any  change  in  God  or  in  his  laws. 

"  Yea,  in  case  the  justified  by  faith  should  cease  believing,  the 
scripture  would  pronounce  them  unjust  again;  and  yet  without  any 
change  in  God,  or  scripture,  but  only  in  themselves;  because  their 
justification  doth  continue  conditional  as  long  as  they  live  here. 

"  Justification  is  not  a  single  act,  begun,  and  ended  immediate- 
ly upon  our  believing;  but  a  continued  act,  which,  though  it  be  in 
its  kind  complete  from  the  first,  yet  is  still  in  doing,  till  the 
final  justification  at  the  judgment  dayy  They  add,  "  that  the 
justified  may  pray  for  the  continuance  of  their  justification;  and 
that  Christ's  satisfaction  and  our  faith  are  of  continual  use,  and 
uot  to  be  laid  by,  when  we  are  once  justified,  as  if  the  work  was 
done."    Wesley^s  Works,  vol.  xxii.  page  ±72, 173, 178. 

Again:  "  The  pardoning  of  sin  is  a  gracious  act  of  God,  dis- 
charging the  offender  by  the  gospel  grant,  from  the  obligation  to 
punishment,  upon  consideration  of  the  satisfaction  made  by  Christ, 
accepted  by  the  sinner,  and  pleaded  with  God. 

"  I  call  pardon  a  gracious  act;  for  if  it  were  not  gracious,  or 
free,  it  were  no  pardon.  Let  those  think  of  this,  who  say,  we  have 
perfectly  obeyed  the  law  in  Christ,  and  are  therefore  righteous. 
If  the  proper  debt,  either  of  obedience  or  suffering,  be  paid,  either 
by  ourselves  or  by  another;  then  there  is  no  place  left  for  pardon: 
for  when  the  debt  is  paid  we  owe  nothing,  except  new  obedience; 
and  therefore  can  have  nothing  forgiven  us:  for  the  creditor  can- 
not refuse  the  proper  debt,  nor  deny  any  acquittance  upon  re- 
ceipt thereof."  page  171. 

Here  we  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  Baxter,  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and 
of  a  very  conclusive  argument,  in  support  of  all  I  contend  for: 


173  .     AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

1.  That  Christ  did  not  properly  or  legally  discharge  our  debt, 
either  by  obedience  or  suftering:  for  "  If  the  proper  debt,  either  of 
obedience  or  suftering,  be  paid,  either  by  ourselves  or  by  another, 
then  there  is  no  place  left  for  pardon." 

2.  If  Christ  properly  paid  our  debt,  there  was  no  mercy  exer- 
cised by  the  Father:  "  for  the  creditor  cannot  refuse  the  proper 
debt,  nor  deny  any  acquittance  upon  receipt  thereof." 

3.  The  way  Christ  satisfied  justice  by  his  death,  was,  that  he 
made  it  just  for  God  to  grant  sinners  a.  gracious  pardon,  on  certain 
conditions:  for  "The  pardoning  of  sin  is  a  gracious  act  of  God, 
discharging  the  offender  by  the  gospel  grant,  from  the  obligation 
to  punishment,  upon  consideration  of  the  satisfaction  made  by 
Christ,  accepted  by  the  sinner,  and  pleaded  with  God." 

The  next  autbor  I  shall  introduce  is  Mr.  Whitby,  who  speak- 
ing of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  gives  us  the  fol- 
lowing just  observations  and  arguments: 

"  It  renders  the  death  of  Christ  to  procure  the  remission  of  our 
sins  vain,  and  that  on  many  accounts;" 

1.  Because  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us, 
doth  render  his  death  unnecessary  to  procure  any  farther  righteous- 
ness or  justification  in  our  bchalfj  for  if  by  virtue  of  this  imputa- 
tion we  be  as  righteous  as  Christ  was  in  his  life,  there  can  be  no 
more  need  that  Christ  should  die  for  us,  than  that  he  should  die 
for  himself,  or  any  other  should  die  for  him;  yea,  then  Christ  dy- 
ing only  for  the  benefit  of  believers,  could  not  have  died  for  the 
unjust,  but  only  for  the  just,  that  is,  for  them  for  whom  there  could 
be  no  necessity  that  he  should  die,  but  only  that  he  should  live  for 
them;  seeing  faith  in  him  as  a  Mediator,  performing  perfect  obe- 
dience to  the  law  for  them,  must  make  them  for  whom  he  thus 
obeyed  perfectly  obedient,  and  therefore  must  have  given  them  a 
full  title  to  the  promise,  do  this  and  live. 

2.  According  to  this  doctrine,  there  remains  no  place  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  to  believers,  for  God  neither  did,  nor  could  forgive 
any  sin  in  Christ,  because  he  was  perfectly  righteous,  and  in  him 
was  no  sin;  if  then  believers  be  righteous  with  the  same  righteous- 
ness imputed  to  tbem,  with  which  Christ  was  righteous,  they 
must  be  as  completely  righteous  as  Christ  was,  and  so  have  no 
more  sin,  to  be  pardoned,  than  he  had,  and  so  no  more  need  to  be 
pardoned  than  he  had;  thus  doth  this  doctrine  destroy  Clirist's 
intercession  for  us,  and  also  the  necessity  ol*  his  salutary  passion, 
according  to  those  words  of  St.  Paul,  "If  righteousness,"  that  is, 
"justification  come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain."— 
Whitby's  Commentary,  vol.  ii.  p.  229,  230. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  173 

From  this  quotation  the  following  inferences  are  fairly  drawn, 
as  Mr.  Whitby's  doctrine:  That  if  Christ's  righteousness  were 
imputed  to  us,  we  should  be  perfectly  as  righteous  as  Christ.  2. 
That  this  doctrine  makes  his  death  utterly  unnecessary.  3.  That 
it  leaves  no  place,  or  no  necessity  for  remission  of  sins.  4.  That 
it  destroys  Christ's  intercession. 

Now  if  it  be  a  just  inference  (which  it  certainly  is)  that  if  Christ 
perfectly  obeyed  the  law  for  us,  he  thereby  raised  us  above  the 
want  of  pardon;  it  will  follow  equally,  that  if  he  discharged  the 
whole  penalty  of  the  law  for  us,  he  thereby  raised  us  above  the 
want  of  pardon.  For  the  reason  why  sinners  need  forgiveness  is, 
that  they  stand  exposed  to  punishment,  as  a  penalty  of  justice, 
which  they  cannot  do  after  that  penalty  is  entirely  discharged; 
and  therefore  such  a  discharge  raises  them  as  fully  above  the  want 
of  forgiveness  as  the  imputation  of  a  perfect  obedience. 

1  must  again  produce  two  witnesses  together,  and  two  of  the 
best,  I  presume,  that  have  appeared  in  the  world  since  the  days 
of  the  apostles:  I  mean  Mr.  Goodwin  and  Mr.  Wesley. 

The  quotations  are  the  production  of  Mr.  Goodwin,  but  Mr. 
W^esley  has  made  them  his  own,  by  incorporating  them  into  his 
works,  as  the  reader  will  find  by  reading  the  23d  volume,  Bristol 
edition,  1773. 

« If  Christ  had  fulfilled  the  law  ia  our  stead,  till  the  uttermost 
period  of  his  life,  there  had  been  no  necessity  of  his  dying  for  us. 
There  is  no  light  clearer  than  this.  For  if  we  stand  before  God, 
by  virtue  of  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  as  our 
own,  perfectly  righteous,  we  are  no  more  obnoxious  to  the  curse 
of  the  law,  and  consequently  have  no  need  of  any  satisfaction  to 
divine  justice,  nor  of  any  remission  of  sins  by  blood.  There  needs 
nothing  more  to  a  perfect  justification,  than  a  perfect  righteous- 
ness, or  a  perfect  fulfilling  of  the  law:  this  the  apostle  clearly  lay- 
eth  down.  Gal.  ii.  21.  If  righteousness  be  by  the  law  (whether 
performed  by  ourselves,  or  by  another  for  us)  then  Christ  is  dead 
in  vain."     Wesley^s  Works,  page  10, 11. 

*igain: — "It  hath  no  foundation,  either  in  scripture  or  reason, 
to  say  that  Christ,  by  any  imputation  of  sins  was  m&dn  formally  a 
sinner:  or,  that  sin  in  any  other  sense  was  imputed  to  him,  than  as 
the  punishment  due  to  it  was  inflicted  on  him.  So  Bishop  Dave* 
nant  makes  the  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ,  to  stand  in  the  trans,- 
latioQ  of  the  punishment  of  sin  upon  him.  And  in  another  place. 
Z 


0i>  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Christ  was  willing  so  to  take  our  sins  upon  him,  as  not  to  be  made 
a  sinner  hereby,  but  a  sacritiee  for  sin."  page  20. 

From  this  it  evidently  follows;  1.  That  Christ  remained  per- 
fectly  innocent:  2.  That  he  came  under  no  obligation  of  justice  to 
sufter,  and  consequently  justice  could  never  demand  it  of  him  as  a 
penalty,  otherwise  justice  can  demund  penalties  of  the  innocent.—' 
But  let  the  witnesses  speak  for  themselves. 

"  In  this  sense,  Christ  may  be  said  to  have  suffered  the  penalty 
or  curse  of  the  law.  First,  it  was  the  curse,  or  penalty  of  the  law, 
BOW  ready  to  be  executed  upon  all  men  for  sin,  that  occasioned  his 
suffering.  Had  not  the  curse  of  the  law  been  incurred  by  man, 
Christ  had  not  suffered  at  all.  Again:  2dly,  Christ  may  be  said 
to  have  suffered  the  curse  of  the  law,  because  the  things  which  ho 
suffered  were  of  the  same  kind  (at  least  in  part)  with  those  which 
God  intended,  by  the  curse  of  the  law  against  transgressors,  name- 
ly, rfenf/i.  But  if,  by  the  curse  of  the  law,  we  understand,  either 
that  entire  system  of  penalties,  which  the  law  itself  intends  in  the 
term  death,  or  the  intent  of  the  law,  touching  the  quality  of  the 
persons  on  whom  it  was  to  be  executed;  in  neither  of  these  senses 
did  Christ  suffer  the  curse  of  the  law;  neither  ever  hath  it,  nor 
ever  shall  be  suffered,  by  any  transgressors  of  the  law  that  shall 
believe  in  him.  So  that  God  required  the  death  and  sufferings  of 
Christ,  not  that  the  law  properly,  either  in  the  letter  or  intention 
of  it,  might  be  executed,  but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  might  not  be 
executed  upon  those  that  believe."  page  2i,22. 

Now,  if  the  curse  of  the  law  has  not  been  suffered  by  Christ,  in 
the  full  sense,  either  in  the  letter  or  intention  of  it;  if  it  never  luithy 
atid  never  shall  be  suffered  "by  any  transgressors  of  the  law  that 
shall  believe  in  him;"  it  is  clear  that  it  never  has  been,  and  never 
shall  be  suffered  by  either  the  sinner  or  his  surety:  consequently, 
Christ  died  to  make  it  just  for  God  to  blot  out  the  penally,  or  de- 
liver us  from  punishment,  by  granting  us  a  gracious  pardon. 

Once  more:  "  In  this  sense  of  imputation  (and  this  only)  the  sins 
of  men  may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  Christ,  namely,  because  he 
suffered  the  things  which  he  did  suffer,  in  consideration  of  them: 
and  these  sufferings  of  his  may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  be- 
cause we  are  rewarded,  that  is,  justified  and  saved  in  considera- 
tion of  them.  But  that  either  our  sins  should  be  said  to  be  im- 
puted to  Christ,  because  he  is  reputed  by  God  to  have  committed 
them,  or  that  his  righteousness,  whether  active  or  passive,  should 
be  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  because  we  are  reputed  by  God  to 


PtAN  OF  SALVATION.  i,n 

have  done  or  suffered  the  one  or  the  other,  hath  no  foundation 
either  in  scripture  or  reason."  page  30,  31. 

"  God  hath  opened  another  way  for  the  justification  of  sinners, 
namely,  faith  in  Christ,  and  he  never  sets  up  one  way  against 
another.  Therefore  to  affirm,  that  the  fulfiling  of  the  law  is  re- 
quired of  any  man,  either  by  himself  or  by  another  in  his  stead, 
for  his  justification,  is  to  affirm,  either  that  a  man  that  hath  sin- 
ned, hath  not  sinned,  or  that,  that  which  God  hath  said,  he  hath 
unsaid."  page  33. 

Now  I  infer,  if  the  fulfiling  of  the  law  is  not  required  of  any 
man,  either  by  himself  or  by  any  other  in  his  stead,  those  breaches 
of  the  law  which  true  believers  have  been  guilty  of,  have  been 
properly  forgiven,  and  that  the  demand  of  the  law  in  those  cases, 
has  never  been  rendered  by  any  one,  either  by  obeying  or  suffer- 
ing; otherwise  it  cannot  with  truth  be  said,  that  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law  is  not  required  of  such  a  man,  unto  his  justification,  either 
by  himself  or  by  another  in  his  stead.  Consequently,  if  Mr. 
Goodwin  and  Mr.  Wesley  be  in  the  right,  Christ  never  died  to 
save  sinners,  by  means  of  a  legal  righteousness,  imputed  to  them 
or  fulfilled  in  their  stead,  but  to  make  it  consistent  with  the  na- 
ture of  God  to  grant  pardon:  that  is,  graciously  to  forbear  requir- 
ing a  fulfilment  of  the  law  in  those  eases,  either  by  obeclience  or 
penalty. 

«  Lastly,  in  case  a  man  hath  transgressed  the  law,  and  suffered 
(whether  by  himself  or  some  other  for  him)  the  full  punishment  of 
it,  he  is  no  farther  a  debtor  to  it,  either  in  point  of  obedience,  or 
of  punishment,  nor  hath  any  thing  to  do  with  the  law  more  or 
less,  for  his  justification;  because  the  punishment  which  hath 
heen  so  suffered,  is  of  equal  consideration  to  the  law,  with  the 
most  absolute  conformity  to  its  precepts.  So  that  as  no  man  is  ot 
ever  was,  bound  to  fulfil  the  law  twice  over,  for  his  justification: 
so  neither  is  it  equal,  that  he,  that  hath  suffered  in  full  the  penal- 
ty of  the  law,  which  is  as  satisfactory  to  it  as  the  exactest  obedi- 
ence, should  be  still  bound  to  the  observation  of  the  law  (whether 
by  himself  or  any  other)  for  his  justification;  this  being  all  one,  as 
the  requiring  a  second  obedience  to  the  law,  after  a  man  hath  per- 
fectly fulfiled  it  once."  page  98,  99. 

Thus,  the  whole  I  contend  for,  is  affirmed  in  the  most  unequivo- 
cal manner. 

It  is  an  easy  thing,  I  know,  for  a  mind  blinded  by  prejudice,  to 
affirm,  that  the  doctrine  here  defended  is  false,  and  that  Mr.  Good- 


0^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

win  and  Mr,  Wesley  have  said  nothing  in  favour  of  it;  hut  I  must 
request  every  person  of  candour  and  cuniiuon  sense,  to  look  back 
at  those  quotations,  and  tell  me  if  it  be  not  declared  most  eocpress- 
ly,  1.  That  if  sinners  were  justified,  in  consequence  of  having  per- 
fectly obeyed  the  law,  either  by  themselves,  or  by  another  in  their 
stead,  there  would  be  no  place  for  remission  of  sins.  2,  That  if 
they  were  juslitied,  in  consequence  of  a  full  discharge  of  the  pe- 
nalty, whether  by  themselves  or  any  other,  it  would  be  of  equal 
consideration  to  the  law,  with  the  most  absolute  conformity  to  its 
precepts,  and  thereibre  would  involve  the  same  consequences. — 
And,  3.  That  tliis  would  be  all  one,  as  the  requiring  a  second  obe» 
diepce  to  the  law,  after  a  man  hath  perfectly  fultiled  it  once. 

This  being  so  fully  in  point,  to  establish  every  thing  that  can 
be  desired  in  confirmation  of  the  subject,  and  that  from  such  high 
authority,  1  shall  trouble  my  reader  at  present  with  the  testimo- 
ny or  judgment  of  only  one  more  writer  on  the  Arminian  side. 

We  find  a  short  essay  on  the  atonement,  in  the  Methodist  Maga- 
zine, founded  on  this  motto  from  Ur.  S.  Clark  "  the  design  of  me- 
4iation  was,  that  God  would  testify  his  hatred  and  indignation 
against  sin,  by  consigning  the  pardon  of  it,  through  the  blood  of 
the  Mediator," 

<.'God,  who  is  not  only  a  Being  supremely  excellent  in  goodness, 
but  a  most  wise  governor,  was  disposed  so  to  dispense  his  pardon- 
ing grace  to  IV  sinful  world,  as  at  the  same  time  to  encourage  men 
to  repent,  aud  to  prevent  their  presuming  on  his  goodness,  and 
abusing  its  rich  discoveries  by  greater  eorruptionand  wickedness." 

<'What  cquld  more  demonstrate  the  will  of  the  Divine  Being,  to 
advance  holiness,  and  destroy  the  very  seeds  of  vice,  than  his  sub- 
jecting, for  this  end,  his  only  Son  to  the  meanness  and  labours  of 
a  mortal  condition,  and  the  suifering  of  death? 

"If  it  be  ot^jef'ted,  where  is  the  justice  of  punishing  the  innocent, 
that  the  guilty  may  go  free;  1  answer,  there  is  no  injustice  in  per- 
mitting those  evils  to  fall  on  the  innocent,  which  to  the  guilty  are 
punishnK;nt^  of  sin,  when  important  ends  of  the  divine  government 
are  hereby  answered." 

Suppose  a  ki"g?  nut  of  a  concern  to  maintain  his  authority,  and 
secure  the  future  obedience  of  his  subjects,  refuse,  even  at  the  re- 
quest of  his  only  Son  to  recall  banishttd  rebels,  unless  the  Son 
would  partake  of  their  banishment,  and  endeavour  personally  tp 
reclaim  them  to  a  sense  of  their  rebellion  and  of  their  duty,  and  the 
prince  willingly  undertake  this^  it  it^  certain  by  living  a  time  with 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  iTy 

the  banished,  he  suflTers  the  punishment  of  their  rebellion,  though 
himself  innocent;  and  this,  without  any  injustice,  because  it  is  his 
own  voluntary  act,  and  because  he  hath  the  satisfaction  of  reclaim- 
ing the  banished,  and  as  a  reward,  sees  them  restored  to  forfeited 
favour,  and  receives  himself  a  share  in  his  Father's  throne."  Me- 
thodist Magazine  for  the  year  1811,  vol.  34:,  page  30,  32,  34. 

Leaving  the  reader  to  make  his  own  comment  on  this  quotation, 
I  will  close  this  section  with  a  few  remarks  upon  our  twentieth  ar- 
ticle. The  article  stands  thus;  <'the  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is 
that  perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual;  and  there  is 
none  other  satisfaction  for  sin  but  that  alone." 

Here  it  is  unequivocally  affirmed, 

1.  That  a  perfect  propitiation  or  satisfaction  has  been  made  for 
ain,  by  the  oft'ering  of  Christ. 

3.  That  this  satisfaction  is  made  both  for  original  and  actual 
sin. 

3.  That  it  is  made  for  the  whole  world  of  mankind. 

4.  That  it  is  made  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  of 
course  for  final  unbelief,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  this  is  not  a 
gin,  or  not  a  sin  belonging  to  any  man  in  the  whole  world. 

Does  our  article  mean  by  this  satisfaction,  that  the  sentence 
of  the  law  was  executed,  by  an  inflexible  demand  of  justice,  and 
that  all  penalties  were  thus  legally  discharged  by  Christ  for  all 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world.''  "If  so,  every  sinner  in  the  whole  world 
js  as  free  from  all  penalties,  as  God  is  free  from  absolute  injustice. 

But  we  believe  all  men  who  die  in  their  sins  will  have  to  suffer 
the  penalty,  as  though  Christ  had  never  died  for  them:  I  therefore 
conclude  the  meaning  of  the  article  is,  that  Christ  rendered  such 
satisfaction  as  made  it  just  for  God  to  pardon  any  sinner  in  the 
world,  on  condition  of  repentance  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

Some  appear  to  think  Christ  discharged  all  penalties,  except 
for  the  sin  of  final  unbelief;  but  when  a  sinner  submits  to  the  con- 
ditions of  the  gospel,  is  not  his  former  unbelief  forgiven,  as  well 
as  his  other  sins?  If  so,  they  must  confess  the  sin  of  unbelief  has 
been  expiated,  because  it  has  sometimes  been  forgiven  after  hav. 
ing  been  indulged  for  forty  years.  Do  they  mean  that  it  is  the  last 
act  of  unbelief,  for  which  no  atonement  was  made.^  And  is  this  the 
only  act  for  which  sinners  are  to  be  punished  in  a  future  state? 
J^o:  *' For  God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judgment  with  ever? 
secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  evil. — Ecclesiastes,  xii.  14. 


iU  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Now  it  is  just  and  consistent  for  sinners  to  be  punished  eternal- 
ly, "for  the  very  sins  which  were  expiated  by  Christ,"  or  it  i» 
not;  If  it  is,  then  what  necessity  of  his  leaving  some  sins  without 
being  expiated,  and  why  recur  to  this  subterfuge  to  prove  the  con- 
sistency and  justice  of  the  sinner's  condemnation?  If  it  is  not,  the 
eonclusion  follows,  either  that  all  for  whom  he  died  will  infallibly 
be  saved,  or  that  there  is  some  particular  sin  for  which  he  did  not 
die  and  for  Mhich  alone  peniteirt  sinners  will  be  punished,  without 
ever  having  to  account  or  suiter  for  the  generality  of  their  trans- 
gressions. Thus  we  should  contradict  our  articles  of  religion  to- 
gether with  the  whole  tenor  of  the  scriptures. 


SECTION  VI. 

The  testimony  of  e7nimnt  Calvinistic  Divines. 

I  propose  now  to  show  that  our  Calvinist  brethren  themselves 
are  forced  into  this  doctrine,  whenever  they  attempt  to  give  any 
reasonable  account  of  their  views  of  redemption. 

To  this  end  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  give  a  quotation  from 
Dr.  Andrew  Fuller,  reminding  the  reader  that  those  passages 
which  directly  point  to  the  subject  I  have  attempted  to  explain, 
are  put  in  Italics. 

"  The  sense  of  mankind,  with  regard  to  the  necessity  of  a  Me- 
diator, may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  similitude.  Let  us 
suppose  a  division  in  the  army  of  one  of  the  wisest  and  best  of 
kings,  through  the  evil  counsel  of  a  foreign  enemy,  to  have  been 
disaffected  to  his  government;  and  that  without  any  provocation 
on  his  part,  they  traitorously  conspired  against  his  crown  and  life. 
The  attempt  failed;  and  the  offenders  were  seized,  disarmed,  tried 
by  the  laws  of  their  country,  and  condemned  to  die.  A  respite 
however  was  granted  them,  during  his  Majesty's  pleasure.  At 
this  solemn  period,  while  every  part  of  the  army,  and  of  the  em- 
pire, was  expecting  the  fatal  order  for  execution,  the  king  was  em- 
ployed in  meditating  mercy.  But  how  conld  mercy  be  shewn?  "To 
make  light  of  a  conspiracy,"  said  he  to  his  friends,  would  loosen 
tiie  bands  of  good  governmentt  other  divisions  of  the  army  might  be 


PLAN  OF  SAUVATION.  179 

tempted  to  follow  their  example^  and  the  nation  at  large  might  be 
in  danger  of  imputing  it  to  tameness,  fear,  or  some  unworthy  mo- 
tive." 

"  Every  one  felt  in  this  case  the  necessity  of  a  mediator,  and 
agreed  as  to  the  general  line  of  conduct  proper  for  him  to  pursue. 
He  must  not  attempt,'  said  they,  *  to  compromise  the  ditter- 
enccs  by  dividing  the  blame:  that  would  make  things  worse.  He 
must  justify  the  king,  and  condemn  the  outrage  committed  against 
him;  he  must  oflfer,  if  possible,  some  honourable  expedient,  by 
means  of  which  the  bestowment  of  pardon  shall  not  relax,  but 
strengthen  just  authority;  he  must  convince  the  conspirators  of 
their  crime,  and  introduce  them  in  the  character  of  supplicants; 
and  mercy  must  be  shewn  them  out  of  respect  to  him  or  for  his 
sake. 

"  But  who  could  be  found  to  mediate  in  such  a  cause.''  This  was 
an  important  question.  A  work  of  this  kind,  it  was  allowed  on 
all  hands,  required  singular  qualilieations. 

"  He  must  be  perfectly  clear  of  any  participation  in  the  of- 
fence,' said  one, '  or  inclination  to  favour  it.' 

"  He  must,'  said  another,  '  be  one,  who  on  account  of  his  char* 
acter  and  services  stands  high  in  the  esteem  of  the  king  and  of  the 
public:  a  mediator  in  effect  pledges  his  honor  that  no  evil  will  re- 
sult to  the  state  from  the  granting-  of  his  request." 

«  I  conceiv  e  it  is  necessary,'  said  a  third,  '  that  the  weight  of 
the  mediation  should  bear  a  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the 
«rime,  and  to  the  value  of  the  favour  requested  ;  and  that  for  this 
end  it  is  proper  he  should  be  a  person  oi' great  dignity, 

"  A  fourth  remarked,  that  he  must  possess  a  tender  compassion 
towards  the  unhappy  offenders,  or  he  would  not  cordially  interest 
himself  in  their  behalf. 

"  Finally,  it  was  suggested  by  a  fifth,  that  "  for  the  greater  fit- 
ness of  the  proceeding,  it  would  be  proper  that  some  relation  or 
«onnexiou  should  subsist  between  the  parties. 

"  Meanwhile  the  king  and  his  son,  w  horn  he  greatly  loved,  and 
whom  he  had  appointed  generalissimo  of  all  his  forces,  had  retired 
from  the  company,  and  were  conversing  about  the  matter,  which 
attracted  the  general  attention. 

"  My  son,  said  the  benevolent  sovereign,  what  can  be  done  in 
behalf  of  these  unhappy  men,^*  To  order  them  for  execution,  vio- 
lates every  feeling  of  my  heart:  yet  to  pardon  them  is  dangerous. 
If  mercy  be  exercised,  it  must  be  through  a  mediator;  and  who  is 
qualifted  to  mediate  in  such  a  cause?  and  what  expedient  can  be 


180  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

devised  by  means  of  which  pardon  shall  not  relax,  hut  strengthen 
just  authority:  speak,  my  son,  and  say  what  measures  can  be  pur- 
sued? 

"  My  father,'  said  the  prince,  *  I  feel  the  insult  offered  to  your 
person  and  government,  and  the  injury  thereby  aimed  at  the  em- 
pire at  large.  They  deserve  to  die  without  mercy.  Yet  1  feel  for 
them.  I  cannot  endure  to  witness  their  execution.  What  shall  I 
sav?  On  me  be  this  wrong!  Let  me  suffer  in  their  stead.  Inflict 
on  me  as  much  as  is  necessary  to  impress  the  army  and  the  nation 
with  a  just  sense  of  the  evil,  and  of  the  importance  of  good  order  and 
faUhful  allegiance.  Let  it  be  in  their  presence,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  all  assembled.  When  this  is  done,  let  them  be  permitted 
to  implore  and  receive  your  majesty's  joarrfon  in  my  name.  If  any 
man  refuse  so  to  implore,  and  so  to  receive  it,  let  him  die  the 
death. 

"  My  son!'  replied  the  king,  '  you  have  expressed  my  heart! 
The  same  things  have  occupied  my  mind;  but  it  was  my  desire  that 
you  should  be  voluntary  in  the  undertaking.  It  shall  be  as  you  have 
said.  The  dignity  of  your  person  and  character  will  render  the 
sufferings  of  aw  hour,  of  greater  account  as  to  the  impression  of  the 
public  mind,  than  if  all  the  rebellious  had  been  executed:  and  by 
how  much  I  am  known  to  have  loved  you,  by  so  much  will  my 
compassion  to  them,  and  my  displeasure  against  their  wicked  con- 
duct be  made  manifest^ 

"  The  gracious  design  being  communicated  at  court,  all  were 
struck  with  it.  The  only  diffieully  that  was  started,  was  amongst 
the  judges  of  the  realm.  They,  at  first,  questioned  whether  the 
proceeding  was  admissible.  '  The  law,'  said  they,  '  makes 
provision  for  the  transfer  of  debts,  but  not  of  crimes.  Its  language 
is,  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die."  But  when  they  came  to 
view  tilings  on  a  more  enlarged  Sfo^e,  considering  it  as  an  expedi- 
ent on  an  extraordinary  occasion,  and  pereeiviug  that  the  spirit  of 
the  law  would  be  preserved,  and  ail  the  ends  of  good  govern- 
ment answered,  they  were  satisfied.  "  It  is  not  a  measure,"  said 
they,  "  for  which  the  law  provides,  yet  it  is  not  contrary  to  the 
law,  but  above  it.     [Goodness  is  more  than  justice.] 

"  The  day  appointed  arrived.  The  prince  appeared,  and  suf- 
fered as  a  criminal.  Returning  to  the  palace,  amidst  the  tears 
and  shouts  of  the  loyal  spectators,  the  suffering  hero  was  embraced 
fcy  his  royal  lather;  who,  in  addition  to  the  natural  affection 
^hich  he  bore  to  him  as  a  son,  loved  him  for  his  singular  interposi- 


FLAN  OF  SALVATION.  I8i 

tioii  at  such  a  crisis.  <  Sit  thou,'  said  he,  <  at  my  right  hand! 
though  the  threatenings  of  the  law  be  not  literally  accomplished, 
yet  the  spirit  of  them  is  preserved,  the  honour  of  good  government 
is  secured,  and  the  end  of  punishment  is  more  effectually  an- 
swered, than  if  all  the  rebels  had  been  sacrificed.  Ask  of  me,  my 
son,  what  I  shall  give  thee!" 

*'  He  asked  for  the  offenders  to  be  introduced  as  supplicants  at 
the  feet  of  his  father,  for  the  forgiveness  of  their  crimes,  and  for 
the  direction  of  affairs  till  order  and  happiness  should  be  perfectly 
restored. 

"  A  proclamation,  addressed  to  the  conspirators,  was  now  issu- 
ed, stating  what  had  been  their  conduct,  what  the  conduct  of  the 
king,  and  what  of  the  prince.  Messengers  also  were  appointed  to 
carry  it,  with  orders  to  read  it  publickly,  and  to  expostulate  with 
them  individually,  beseeching  them  to  be  reconciled  to  their  of- 
fended sovereign,  and  to  assure  them,  that  if  they  rejected  this* 
there  remained  no  more  hope  of  mercy. 

"  When  the  proclamation  was  read,  many  paid  no  manner  of  at- 
tention to  it;  some  insinuated  that  the  messengers  were  interested 
men,  and  that  there  might  be  no  truth  in  what  they  said;  and  some 
even  abused  them  as  impostors. 

"  My  heart,'  says  one,  '  rises  against  every  part  of  this  pro- 
ceeding. Why  all  this  ado  about  a  few  words  spoken  one  to 
another.'*' 

"  If  a  third  person,'  says  another,  '  must  be  concerned  in  tha 
affair,  what  occasion  is  there  for  one  so  high  in  rank  and  dig^ 
Hity?  To  stand  in  need  of  such  a  mediator,  must  stamp  our  char- 
acters with  everlasting  infamy.' 

"  I  believe,'  says  a  fourth,  'that  the  king  knows  very  well  that 
we  have  not  had  justice  done  us,  and  therefore  this  mediation  bu* 
siness  is  introduced  to  make  us  amends  for  the  injury.' 

"  You  are  all  wrong,'  says  a  fifth,'  I  comprehend  the  design, 
and  am  well  pleased  with  it.  I  hate  the  government  as  much  as 
any  of  you:  but  I  love  the  mediator;  for  I  understand  it  is  his  inten«> 
tion  to  deliver  me  from  its  tyranny.  He  has  paid  the  debt,  the 
king  is  satisfied,  and  I  am  free.  I  will  sue  out  my  right,  and  rfe- 
mand  my  liberty.^''  See  the  Gospel  its  own  Witness,  &c.  page  141, 
142,  &c.  &c. 

Mr.  Fuller  afterwards  introduces  Paine's  objection,  that  «  the 
doctrine  of  redemption  has  for  its  basis  an  idea  of  pecuniary  jus- 
tice, and  not  that  of  moral  justice."  And  in  answering  it  he  ob- 
Aa 


19^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

«ervcs,  "  A  mnrderer  owes  his  life  to  the  justice  of  his  country; 
and  when  he  suffers,  he  is  said  to  pay  the  awful  debt.  So  also  if  a 
great  character,  by  suffering  death,  could  deliver  his  country,  suet 
deliverance  would  be  spoken  of  as  obtained  by  the  price  of  blood. 
No  one  mistakes  these  things  by  understanding  them  of  pecuniary 
transactions.  In  such  connexions,  every  one  perceives  that  tlie 
terms  are  used  not  literally  but  metaphorically;  and  it  is  thus  that 
they  are  to  be  understood  with  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ." 
Page  154. 

He  says  again,  page  156,  "  Redemption  by  Jesus  Christ  was  ac- 
eomplished,  tiot  by  a  satisfaction  that  should  preclude  the  exercise 
of  grace  in  forgiveness,  but  in  which  the  displeasure  of  God 
against  sin  being  manifested,  mercy  to  the  sinner  might  be  exer- 
eised  without  any  suspicion  of  his  having  relinquished  his  regards 
for  righteousness.^^    Again: 

After  mentioning  some  who  "  have  considered  the  death  of 
Christ  as  purchasing  repentance  and  faith,  as  well  as  all  other 
spiritual  blessings,  on  behalf  of  the  elect;  and  upon  this  ground 
have  maintained  that  God  is  bound  in  strict  justice,  in  respect  to 
Jesus  Christ,  to  confer  grace  and  glory  on  all  those  for  whom  he 
died:"  he  observes,  "  The  writer  of  these  pages,  acknowledges 
he  never  could  perceive  that  any  clear  or  determinate  idea  was 
conveyed  by  the  term  purchase  in  this  connexion,  nor  does  it  ap- 
pear to  him  to  be  a  doctrine  taught  in  the  scriptures.  The  notion 
of  grace  being  bestowed,  on  account  of  value  received,  appears  to 
him  inconsistent  with  the  freeness  of  grace  itself,  and  with  the 
perfection  of  the  divine  being,  to  whom  nothing  can  be  added  or 
given  which  can  lay  him  under  obligation." 

He  concludes  upon  the  whole,  «  If  we  say,  a  way  was  opened 
by  the  death  of  Christ  for  the  free  and  consistent  exercise  of  mercy, 
in  all  the  methodsivhich  sovereign  wisdom  saw  fit  to  adopt,  perhaps 
we  shall  include  every  material  idea  which  the  scripture  gives 
us  of  that  important  event."  Page  157. 

Now  I  must  appeal  to  the  good  sense  of  the  world,  and  ask  if 
these  quotations  be  not  a  plain  defence  and  illustration  of  the  sub- 
ject in  question?  Is  it  possible  to  make  them  accord  with  the 
Antinomian  doctrine  of  atonement?  No:  they  are  a  positive  and 
express  contradiction  of  it;  and  afford  unequivocal  evidence,  that 
even  those  good  men  who  have  been  unhappily  entangled  in  the 
horrors  of  reprobation,  are  forced  into  our  system  whenever  they 
attempt  to  give  any  consistent  account  of  their  views  of  salvation 
through  J#8U8  Christ. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION,  ltd 

Our  doctrine  is  also  advanced  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Davis,  some- 
time president  of  the  college  in  New  Jersey. 

Id  his  first  volume  of  sermons,  speaking  of  God,  he  says,  «  His 
goodnesH  is  that  of  a  ruler,  and  not  of  a  private  person;  ai^d  hi» 
pardoning  of  sin,  and  receiving  ofteuders  into  favour,  are  not  pri- 
vate kindnesses,  but  acts  of  government,  and  therefore  they  must 
be  conducted  with  the  utmost  wisdom;  for  a  Mrong  step  in  his  in- 
finite administration,  which  aftects  such  innumerable  multitudes 
of  subjects,  would  be  an  infinite  evil,  and  might  admit  of  no  re- 
paration." 

«  These  things  I  hope  are  sufficient  to  convince  your  under- 
standings that  divine  justice  is  not  that  unkind,  cruel,  and  savage 
thing  sinners  are  wont  to  imagine  it;  but  that  God  is  just,  because 
God  is  love;  and  that  he  punishes  not  because  he  is  the  enemy, 
but  because  lis  is  the  friend  of  his  creatures,  and  because  he  loves 
the  whole  too  well  to  let  particular  ofifenders  do  mischief  with  im- 
punity." 

"It  may  perhaps  be  objected,"  'That  to  represent  justice  under 
the  notion  of  love,  is  to  aftect  singularity  in  language,  to  destroy 
the  distinction  of  the  divine  attributes,  and  the  essential  differen- 
ces of  things.' — To  which  I  answer,  1.  That  a  eatachresis  may  be 
beautiful  and  emphatieal,  though  it  be  always  a  seeming  impro- 
priety in  language.  Such  is  this  representation, 'divine  justice, 
divine  love.'  2.  I  do  not  deny  that  God's  executing  righteous  pun- 
ishment upon  the  guilty  may  be  called  justice;  but  then  it  is  his 
love  to  the  public  that  excites  him  to  do  this;  and  therefore  his  do- 
ing it  may  be  properly  denominated  love,  as  well  as  justice,  or 
love  under  the  name  of  justice,  which  is  love  still.  3. 1  do  not  mean 
that  the  usual  names  of  things  should  be  changed,  but  that  we 
should  affix  suitable  ideas  to  them.  We  may  retain  the  name  of 
justice  still,  but  let  us  not  affix  ideas  to  it  that  are  inconsistent 
with  divine  love.  Let  us  not  look  upon  it  as  the  attribute  of  a  ty- 
rant, but  of  a  wise  and  good  ruler."-/SVrmon  on  God  is  Love,  vol.  i 
page  4-5  3.  454. 

Here  are  two  important  principles  laid  down:  1.  that  goodness 
and  justice  operate  in  constant  harmony,  and  can  never  be  contra- 
dictory to  each  other.  2.  That  "  it  is  his  love  to  the  public  that 
excites  him  to  execute  righteous  punishment  upon  the  guilty  be- 
cause he  loves  the  whole  too  well  to  let  particular  ofifenders  da- 
mischief  with  impunity."  Hence  it  follows,  that  all  the  satisfac- 
tion goodness  or  justice  wanted  in  the  free-pardon  of  the  guilty, 
was  that  the  ends  of  government,  and  the  general  welfare  should! 


18*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

be  secured.  This  is  effectually  done  by  the  glorious  Redeemer,  and 
therefore  through  him  sinners  may  be  freely  forgiven. 

That  this  was  Mr.  Davies's  judgment  in  the  matter,  is  very 
clear  from  his  own  words  in  another  place.  For,  speaking  of  re- 
demption, he  says,  "God  being  considered  in  this  affair  in  his  pub- 
lic character,  as  supreme  Magistrate,  or  Governor  of  the  w  orld, 
all  the  punishment  which  he  is  concerned  to  see  inflicted  upon 
sin  is,  only  such  as  answers  the  ends  of  good  government.  Private 
revenge  must  vent  itself  upon  the  very  person  of  the  offender,  or 
be  disappointed.  But  to  a  ruler,  as  such,  it  may  in  some  cases  be 
indiffertint,  whether  the  punishment  be  sustained  by  the  very  per- 
son that  offefided,  or  by  a  substitute  suffering  in  his  stead.  It  may 
also  be  indifferent,  whether  the  very  same  punishment,  as  to  kind 
and  degree,  threatened  in  the  law,  be  inflicted,  or  a  punishment 
equivalent  to  it.  If  the  honour  of  the  ruler  and  his  government  be 
maintained,  it'  all  disobedience  be  properly  discouraged^  H'  iu  short, 
all  the  ends  of  government  can  be  ansiaered,  such  things  as  these 
are  indifferences.  Consequently,  if  these  ends  should  be  answered 
by  Christ  suffering  in  the  stead  of  sinners,  there  xvould  be  no  ob- 
jection against  it." — Sermon  on  "  the  Method  of  Salvation  through 
Jesus  Christ." page  li-i. 

Again  he  says,  page  116,  "Was  it  difficult  how  to  reconcile  the 
salvation  of  sinners,  and  the  public  good?  that  is,  how  to  forgive 
sin,  and  yet  give  an  effectual  warning  against  it?  How  to  receive 
the  sinner  into  favour,  and  to  advance  him  to  the  highest  honour 
and  happiness,  and  in  the  mean  time  deter  all  other  beings  from 
offending.?  All  this  is  provided  for  in  the  sufterings  of  Christ.  Let 
all  worlds  look  to  his  cross,  and  receive  the  warning  which  his 
wounds  and  dying  agonies  proclaim  aloud^  and  sure  they  can  ne- 
ver dare  to  offend  after  the  example  of  man.  Now  they  may  see 
that  the  only  instance  of  pardon  to  be  found  in  the  universe,  was 
not  brought  about  but  by  such  means  as  are  not  likely  to  be  re- 
peated: by  the  incarnation  and  death  of  the  Lord  of  Glory.  And 
can  they  flatter  themselves  that  he  will  leave  his  throne,  and 
bang  upon  a  cross,  as  often  as  any  of  his  creatures  w  antonly 
dare  to  offend  him?  No:  such  a  miracle  as  this,  the  utmost  effort  of 
divine  grace,  is  not  often  to  be  renewed;  and  therelore,  if  they  dare 
to  sin,  it  is  at  their  peril.  They  have  no  reason  to  flatter  them- 
selves they  shall  be  favoured  like  fallen  man;  but  rather  to  ex- 
pect they  shall  share  in  the  doom  of  fallen  angels." 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  from  these  quotations,  than  the  great  and 
interesting  principle  under  consideration;  namely,  that  Christ 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION  186 

sever  came  to  give  the  sinner  a  legal  discharge  from  all  demand* 
of'tha  divine  law;  but  he  bore  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  in  suck 
a  sense  only,  as  should  "reconcile  the  salvation  of  sinners,  and  the 
public  good;  that  is,  that  God  might /or^iue  sin,  and  yet  give  an 
effectual  warding  against  it." 

It  is  true,  Mr.  Davies  advances  some  things  in  other  placesj  and 
•ven  in  the  sanre  sermon,  which  I  cannot  reconcile  with  the  above 
quotations;  but  t.iis  proves  only  that  the  good  understandings  of 
our  brelhrew  .vere  so  influenced  and  filled  with  the  light  of  truth, 
that  they  were  somstimes  constrained  to  give  their  testimony  in  its 
J^ehalf,  though  they  thereby  sapped  the  foundation  of  some  peculiar 
opinions  which  they  had  unhappily  espoused  without  sufficient  ex- 
amination. 

President  Davies  was  what  some  have  termed  a  moderate  Cal- 
vinist.  I  am  convinced, from  the  character  given  of  him,  that  he  Mas 
a  man  of  a  generous  mind,  of  a  true  spirit  of  christian  piety,  and 
of  an  excellent,  improved  understanding.  Some  may  think  this  a 
gulftcient  reason  for  receiving  ail  his  opinions;  but  I  cannot,  because 
this  rule  of  searching  after  truth  was  never  given  by  our  Heavenly 
Master,  and  if  we  were  to  follow  it,  we  should  be  led  to  receive 
contradictions,  as  other  men  of  equal  character  and  abilities  have 
espoused  very  different  opinions  from  those  of  his  persuasion. 

Now  let  me  appeal  to  my  friends  and  fellow  labourers,  who  glory 
in  preaching  a  free  salvation  for  all  the  world:  and  permit  me  to 
ask,  whether  we  must  be  backward  in  proclaiming  the  whole  truth, 
while  the  light  of  it  shines  so  bright  that  others  are  constrained  to 
publish  it  abroad,  notwithstanding  its  opposition  to  their  system, 
and  its  inseparable  connexion  with  ours.'' 

While  they  declare  that  Christ  came  to  vindicate  the  govern- 
ment, and  thus  introduce  the  sinner  to  a  throne  of  grace  to  obtain 
a  free  pardon,  and  yet  inconsistently  maintain  that  all  for  whom 
he  died  must  inevitably  be  saved,  or  else  his  blood  was  shed  in 
vain:  shall  we  involve  ourselves  in  alike  inconsistency,  by  saying 
with  one  breath,  Christ  died  only  to  make  salvation  possible  for  all, 
and  with  the  next,  that  he  really  discharged  all  penal  sanctions 
that  lay  against  every  sinner  in  the  world?  This  sui-ely  would  be 
»ore  than  making  salvation  possible  for  all,  because  it  would 
make  the  salvation  of  all  men  as  absolutely  necessary,  as  it  is  for 
God's  law  never  to  demand  two  penalties,  or  never  to  inflict  the 
same  penalty  twice  over. 


ifiS  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DIRECT  EVIDENCE  OF  REASON  AND  REVELATION,  IN  DEFENCE 
OF  THE  DOCTRINE  STATED  IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER^ 


SECTION  I. 

»3  brief  view  of  the  nature  of  forgiveness. 

The  mysterj'  ofaionemcnt,  like  that  of  the  Trinity,  has  been 
thought  too  sacred  for  human  reason  to  examine;  or  at  least,  that 
it  is  dangerous,  not  to  say  presumptuous,  for  men  to  labour  by  sub- 
tle reasonings  to  obviate  the  difficulties  in  which  it  seems  to  be  in- 
volved. 

We  have  indirectly  acknowledged  to  our  infidel  objectors,  that 
our  principles  dare  not  approach  the  light,  and  their  writers  have 
gladly  availed  themselves  of  our  concessions,  to  increase  the  ef- 
fect of  that  insinuating  ridicule,  with  which  they  wage  a  perpetual 
war  against  our  benevolent  religion. 

"  I  am  the  better  pleased  with  this  method  of  reasouing,"  says 
Mr.  Hume,  in  his  Essay  on  Miracles,  "as  I  think  it  may  serve 
to  confound  those  dangerous  friends,  or  disguised  enemies,  to  the 
christian  religion,  who  have  undertaken  to  defend  it  upon  the 
principles  of  human  reason.  Our  most  holy  religion  is  founded 
on  faith,  not  on  reason;  and  'tis  a  sure  method  of  exposing  it  to  put 
it  to  such  a  trial  as  it  is,  by  no  means,  fitted  to  endure."  Hume's 
Essays,  vol.  ii.  page  198. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  Mr.  Hume  was  very  confident,  that  it  is 
imprudent  to  bring  the  christian  mysteries  to  a  close  inspection, 
and  that  those  are  dangerous  friends  to  the  christian  religion,  or 
disguised  enemies,  who  attempt  to  defend  it  upon  the  principles  of 
human  reason.  Are  not  some  christian  divines  of  the  same  opi- 
nion? H'  so,  is  there  not  an  agreement  of  sentiment  between  them 
and  Mr.  Hume?  And  who  is  nearest  to  infidelity,  the  man  who 
agrees  with  deists,  that  Christianity  is  in  danger  of  being  exposed 
when  too  closely  examined,  or  he  who  differs  from  them  in  this 
important  point,  and  says  with  Dr.  Campbell,  «We  scorn  to  take 


1»LAN  OF  SALVATION.  isr 

shelter  in  obscurity,  and  meanly  to  decline  the  combat;  confident 
as  we  are,  that  reason  is  our  ally  and  our  friend,  and  glad  to  find 
that  the  enemy  at  length  so  violently  suspects  her?"* 

The  reason  why  atonement  has  appeared  to  be  such  a  danger- 
ous mystery,  is,  that  the  Antinomian  notion  of  it  is  founded  on  a 
palpable  contradiction.  Justice  and  mercif  have  been  considered 
as  two  principles  in  the  divine  nature,  which  were  contradictory 
to  each  other,  till  they  were  reconciled  by  the  Redeemer.  Thus 
it  would  seem,  our  Saviour  came  into  the  world  for  the  purpose  of 
reconciling  contradictions. 

Did  the  attributes  of  God  contradict  each  other  before  sin  en- 
tered into  the  creation?  If  not,  they  could  not  do  it  afterwards, 
unless  we  say,  sin  made  a  change  in  the  Divine  Nature:  and  if 
they  were  always  opposed  to  each  other,  till  Christ  reconciled 
them,  it  follows,  that  he  came  from  Heaven  to  change  the  nature 
of  that  Immortal  Being,  with  whom  is  no  variableness  or  shadow 
of  turning. 

The  divine  perfections  agreed  as  harmoniously  in  the  plan  of 
restoring  creatures  from  guilt  and  misery,  after  their  fall,  as  in 
their  creation  or  government  before;  and  as  goodness  was  no  more 
disposed  to  appoint  a  plan  of  restoring  God's  creatures,  which 
should  be  contrary  to  justice,  than  in  tirst  forming  a  plan  of  gov- 
erning them,  it  is  evident  that  justice  was  as  far  from  contradict- 
ing its  operations  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

If  justice  demanded  that  sin  should  never  be  forgiven,  but  that 
all  sinners  should  stand  condemned,  until  it  should  be  unjust  to 
condemn  them  any  longer;  and  if  Christ  came  to  render  this 
demand,  it  is  evident  his  death  was  so  far  from  reconciling  justice 
and  mercy  together,  that  it  confirmed  their  irreconcilable  opposi- 
tion, and  blotted  mercy  out  of  existence. 

But  nothing  is  more  evident  from  the  Bible  than  this  soul-cheer- 
ing truth,  that  mercy  belongeth  unto  God,  and  is  daily  exercised 
towards  the  fallen  children  of  men. 

Among  all  the  dlfterent  sectaries  in  Christendom,  I  have  never 
heard  of  any  who  professedly  called  this  principle  into  question, 
or  denied  its  being  an  essential  doctrine  of  revelation.  However 
we  differ  in  other  matters,  we  all  profess  to  agree  in  the  existence 
of  this  gracious  attribute,  on  which  we  depend  for  eternal  life,  and 
without  which  we  could  never  hope  for  pardon.     The  unmerited 


*  See  his  Lectures  and  Dissertations,  bound  together,  p.  429. 


188  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

kindness  of  our  Maker,  not  only  diffuses  happiness  through  the 
heavenly  regions,  but  extends  its  benign  iuiiuenees  to  the  fallen 
and  the  guilty.  This  is  evident  from  the  structure  of  the  Heavens 
and  the  earth;  more  so,  from  the  testimony  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets;  and  more  still  from  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
having  "brought  life  and  immortality  to  light,  has  proclaimed  a 
gracious  pardon  to  the  world,  free  for  every  sinner  who  will  re- 
pent and  believe  the  record  God  has  given  of  his  Son." 

The  doctrioe  of  forgiveness  is  as  universally  admitted,  among 
chrisiians,  as  that  of  the  Divine  Mercy,  and  is  justly  considered  as 
a  consequence  of  it;  but  the  nature  of  this  act  ol  pardon  or  justifi- 
cation has  long  been  a  subject  of  controversy,  chiefly,  perhaps, 
because  the  disputants  did  not  understand  each  other,  and  were 
not  fully  aware  of  theambiguiiy  of  their  language,  and  the  indis- 
tinctness of  their  conceptions. 

Let  us  endeavour  to  conceive  this  subject  clearly,  that  we  may 
know  what  we  mean,  and  what  we  believe  concerning  it:  till  we 
do  this  we  shall  be  in  danger  of  disputing  about  words,  and  of  dis- 
senting from  those,  who,  when  they  rightly  conceive  our  meaning, 
are  of  the  same  sentiment  with  ourselves. 

The  act  of  pardon  is  an  act  of  the  divine  will:  it  is  no  act  of  the 
sinner's  will,  nor  does  it  consist  in  any  change  produced  upon  him. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  performance  of  the  condition  on  which 
the  pardon  is  suspended  is  an  act  of  the  sinner's  will:  it  is  true  like- 
wise, that  he  experiences  a  gracious  change  wrought  in  him,  as  a 
consequence  of  his  pardon;  but  if  we  say,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the 
pardon  consists  in  the  act  of  the  sinner's  will,  we  say  he  forgives 
himself;  and  if,  on  tlie  other,  that  it  consists  in  the  change  produc- 
ed in  him,  we  confound  pardon  with  sanctilication,  and  suppose 
the  sinner  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  God  he  did  before;  seeing 
we  make  forgiveness  signify  merely  a  change  of  his  nature, 
which  is  surely  as  distinct  from  forgiveness,  as  the  act  of  a  phy- 
sician is  different  from  that  of  a  governor. 

Many  justified  believers  still  need  the  sanctification  of  their  na- 
ture, but  all  men  before  they  are  justified,  need  deliverance  from 
the  penal  consequences  of  their  crimes,  as  well  as  from  their  natu- 
ral effects:  none  but  God  can  grant  us  this  deliverance,  and  that 
act  of  his  will  which  remits  the  sentence,  or  fori>eais  the  execution 
of  it,  is  what  we  understand  by  the  grant  of  pardon. 

The  proper  and  only  subject  of  forgiveness  is  a  rebel  who  justly 
deserves  the  penalty.  It  is  ridiculous  to  talk  of  granting  pardon 
to  the  innocent.  And  if  a  sinner  be  delivered  from  the  sentence 
any  other  way  than  by  au  act  of  pardon,  he  certainly  needs  no  for- 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  189 

giveness,  because  he  has,  by  other  means,  obtained  as  complete  a 
deliverance  from  the  sentence  of  death,  as  any  act  of  pardon  co  Id 
possibly  aftbrd  him.  If  a  sinner  be  now  exposed  to  the  penalty,  it 
stands  in  full  force  against  him,  and  it  would  be  just  for  the  sen- 
tence to  he  executed  upon  him  immediately;  if  he  be  not  exposed 
to  it,  and  yet  has  never  obtained  forgiveness,  it  follows  that  he 
has  been  delivered  some  other  way,  and  upon  principles  of  pure 
justice  will  be  eternally  free  from  the  infliction  of  it,  though  no 
pardon  should  ever  be  granted. 

The  principle  from  which  forgiveness  flows,  is  that  of  benevo- 
lence. 

Sinners,  by  their  rebellion,  hate  forfeited  their  right  to  demand 
exemption  from  the  curse  due  to  the  guilty;  the  death  of  Christ 
was  not  intended  to  restore  that  right  to  sinners,  otherwise  they 
would  have  the  same  demand  they  had  in  a  state  of  innocence, 
and  consequently  be  as  free  from  the  want  of  pardon* 

Ood  is  not  bound  in  a  debt  of  justice  to  any  criminal,  however 
penitent,  seeing  the  claim  of  innocence  is  forfeited  by  sin;  and  as 
there  is  no  right  of  demand  in  the  sinner,  there  can  be  no  corres- 
ponding obligation  on  his  sovereign  to  remit  the  sentence^  or  deli- 
ver him  from  the  penalty. 

But  it  must  be  carefully  observed  in  the  mean  time,  that  al- 
though God  is  under  no  obligation,  in  his  individual  relation  to  the 
criminal,  yet  he  has  graciously  bound  himself  by  promise,  to  par- 
don all  sinners  who  will  repent  and  believe  the  gospel.  This  pro- 
mise he  has  confirmed  by  an  oath,  and  sealed  it  by  the  blood  of 
the  everlasting  covenant.  Therefore  his  veracity,  and  of  course 
his  unchangeable  character,  is  pledged  before  the  whole  universe, 
to  receive  and  pardon  all  sinners,  who  will  truly  submit  to  the  go- 
vernment of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  consequently  he  could  not  vi- 
olate those  promises  and  sacred  pledges,  without  involving  his 
character  and  government  in  such  darkness  and  contradiction,  as 
would  throw  the  minds  of  all  his  innocent  children  into  confusion. 
In  this  sense  he  may  be  said  to  be  bound  by  his  justice;  but  this  bond 
arises,  not  from  a  restoration  of  the  sinner's  right  to  the  demands 
of  innocence,  but  from  his  own  voluntary  goodness,  pledging  him- 
self by  promise  or  benevolent  engagement,  to  remit  the  sentence 
on  certain  specified  conditions. 

Every  innocent  creature,  as  before  observed,  has  an  individual 
and  inherent  right  to  the  character  and  consequences  of  innocence: 
of  course  he  has  a  just  demand  upon  every  being,  not  to  de&troy 
Bb 


t99  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

his  character  of  innocence  by  false  imputations  of  guilt,  or  to  pun- 
ish him  as  a  criminal.  But  all  tliis  being  forfeited  by  sin,  the  re- 
bel has  no  demand  or  claim  to  the  character  of  innocence,  or  to  be 
exempted  from  the  penalfy  of  justice.  Neither  the  death  of 
Christ,  nor  the  promises  of  God  were  ever  intended  to  restore  the 
eriginal  rights  of  innocence  to  sinners  in  this  probationary  state: 
but  to  entitle  them  to  the  privilege  of  obtaining  pardon  and  salva- 
tion, on  gospel  conditions,  from  the  clemency  of  their  gracious  so- 
Tereign. 

After  their  probation  shall  have  ended;  after  every  act  of  bene- 
volence shall  have  been  completed;  and  after  their  intelligent  and 
moral  nature  shall  have  been  restored  and  perfectly  fitted  for  the 
regions  of  eternal  happiness; — then  the  rights  of  innocence  will 
be  theirs  in  common  with  all  the  heavenly  hosts:  but  we  have  no 
evidence  to  believe  any  man  is  in  this  state  till  he  is  fully  sealed 
to  the  day  of  eternal  redemption. 

Whether  any  man  be  thus  fully  sealed  on  this  side  death,  I  pre- 
sume not  to  decide;  but  that  seal,  whenever  he  receives  it,  must  be 
considered  as  the  closing  point  of  his  probation. 

Mr.  Baxter  and  Mr.  Wesley  agree,  that  "justification  is  not  a 
single  act,  begun  and  ended  immediately  upon  our  believing;  but 
a  continued  act,  which,  though  it  be  ia  its  kind  complete  from  the 
first,  yet  is  still  in  doing,  till  the  final  justification  in  the  judg- 
ment day.  That  the  justified  may  pray  for  the  continuance  of  their 
justification,  and  that  Christ's  satisfaction  and  our  faith  are  of 
continual  use,  and  not  to  be  laid  by,  as  if  the  work  was  done." 
Wesleifs  fForlcs,  vol.  22,  page  178. 

The  conclusions  I  would  draw  from  what  has  been  said,  and 
which  I  hope  to  defend  in  the  sequel,  are  these; 

1.  That  Christ  never  came  under  any  obligation  to  suffer,  but 
that  of  benevolence,  pledged  by  way  of  promise. 

2.  That  God  in  Christ  never  came  under  any  other  obligation 
to  any  sinner  of'Adam's  race. 

3.  That  no  sinner  has  any  more  inherent  right  to  demand  par' 
don  from  God,  than  he  had  to  demand  the  death  of  Christ,  for  his 
redemption. 

4.  That  Christ  died  to  make  it  just  for  sinners  to  be  forgiven, 
and  finally  saved,  on  condition  of  repentance,  fiiith  and  gospel 
obedience. 

3.  That  even  upon  the  performance  of  those  conditions,  Christ's 
death  has  not  bound  God,  iu  any  other  sense  than  as  it  has  been 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  191 

given  as  a  seal  of  his  gracious  promise,  engagement  or  covenant 
with  his  creatures. 

We  have  been  told,  on  the  contrary,  that  Christ  has  done  and 
suffered  all  that  sinners  were  bound  to  do  or  to  suffer:  that  he 
obey«d  the  whole  law  and  suffered  the  whole  penalty,  in  their 
stead;  and  that  his  tibedience  and  sufferings  are  so  made  over,  or 
transfered  to  the  sinner,  by  some  mysterious  imputation,  that 
God  really  views  him  as  having  done  all  the  law  required,  and 
as  having  suffered  tlie  whole  penalty  it  demanded.  This  system 
is  clogged  with  the  following  consequences: 

First:  it  charges  God  with  being  an  unjust  extortioner:  for  if  an 
obedience  has  been  rendered  to  the  law,  pei'feetly  equal  to  its  dc:- 
mand,  all  penalties  are  necessarily  precluded;  unless  we  say  a 
lavv  perfectly  obeyed  demands  a  penalty.  For  what  does  it  de- 
mand  a  penalty?  Not  for  disobedience,  because  it  has  been  per- 
fectly obeyed:  the  penalty  then  must  be  for  obedience  or  for  no- 
thing at  all.  If  the  sinner,  by  imputation,  be  really  clothed  with 
a  perfect  righteousness,  exactly  such  as  the  law  demands,  it 
would  be  forever  unjust  for  any  penalty  to  be  inflicted  either  oc 
him  or  his  surety. 

Secondly:  clothed  in  this  perfect  righteousness,  he  appeals  to 
inflexible  justice  as  the  ground  of  his  justification;  he  looks  up  to 
the  law  for  protection,  having  fulfilled  every  precept  in  his  surety; 
he  justly  demands  an  exemption  from  the  curse,  and  stands  in  uo 
more  need  of  pardon  than  the  brightest  angel  there  is  in  heaven. 

Thirdly:  if  God  demanded  that  the  whole  penalty  should  be  ac- 
tually inflicted  before  any  sinner  should  escape,  he  certainly  re- 
solved that  sin  should  never  be  forgiven;  for  if  we  say  an  infliction 
of  the  whole  penalty  is  no  proof  that  the  siu  was  not  pardoned,  it 
may  be  true  that  the  sins  of  all  that  are  in  hell  have  been  forgi- 
ven, seeing  their  suffering  the  penalty  is  no  proof  to  the  contrary. 
If  crimes  forgiven,  and  those  which  are  not,  must  be  equally  pun- 
ished, it  is  plain  to  common  sense  that  forgiveness  is  a  mere  name 
which  signifies  just  nothing. 

Fourthly:  let  our  objectors  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  the  death  of  Christ  did  not  discharge  the  penalty,  but  only- 
accomplished  that  which  was  necessary  to  make  the  grant  of  par- 
don accord  with  the  general  welfare:  would  it  be  just  for  God  to 
grant  pardon  in  this  way,  or  not?  If  it  would,  then  there  was  no 
necessity  in  justice  for  Christ  to  discharge  the  penalty;  if  it  would 
not,  then  we  say  God  ha^  »o  authority  to  forgive  offenders,  even 
when  it  can  be  done  in  perfect  consistency  with  good  government. 


493  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

and  with  the  security  of  the  public  welfare.  Consequently,  that  he 
has  less  authority  than  human  rulers,  who  we  know  have  the  pre-- 
rogative  to  grant  pardon  to  those  w  ho  have  been  legally  condemn- 
ed when  it  can  be  done  without  jeopardising  the  general  welfare 
of  society. 

Fifthly:  if  we  say  God  has  authority  to  grant  pardon,  when  the 
general  good  is  secured,  but  that  he  will  not  do  it,  until  the  whole 
penalty  be  endured,  these  consequences  will  inevitably  follow:  i. 
That  God  has  no  Mercy  in  his  nature.  2.  That  in  demanding  pun- 
ishment when  the  public  welfare  does  not  reqnire  it,  he  has  no  re- 
gard to  the  rights  or  happiness  of  others  as  the  reason  of  this  de- 
mand, and  of  course  that  he  has  no  regard  to  the  principle  of  jusr 
lice  or  benevolence.  3.  That  this  demand  arises  solely  from  a  sel- 
^sh  principle,  that  is,  a  principle  which  has  no  object  in  view  but 
its  own  private  gratification.  4.  That  this  private  principle  or 
passion  is  gratified  with  another's  misery,  seeing  that  misery  could 
be  abolished  without  injuring  any  creature  in  existence.  And 
•what  is  the  diiference  between  this  principle,  and  the  most  con- 
firmed and  unrelenting  malice.^  "can  you  split  this  hair.^  I  doubt, 
I  cannot." 

Another  scheme  of  redemption  is,  that  Christ  came  merely  to 
display  the  love  of  God  to  man,  and  reconcile  man  to  his  heavenly 
Father:  that  God  never  actually  punishes  sinners,  because  there 
is  no  wrath  in  his  nature:  but  that  sin,  of  its  own  nature,  makes 
us  miserable;  and  nothing  ijbstructs  our  salvation  but  our  own  op- 
position to  God  and  to  holiness:  and  of  course  Christ  did  nothing 
to  satisfy  any  demand  of  God,  but  merely  to  reconcile  the  sinner 
and  bring  him  back  to  his  allegiance. — See  a  short  treatise  on  the 
atonement,  by  Mr.  Stone. 

We  cannot  receive  this  doctrine  for  several  reasons. 

1.  Because  it  contradicts  the  scriptures  which  every  where  de- 
clare that  God  will  execute  just  judgment  upon  the  wicked,  and 
that  the  end  of  Ciirist's  coming  was,  "that  the  world  through  him 
might  be  saved,"  which  surely  implies  that  >Yithout  him  the  world 
could  not  be  saved. 

2.  This  doctrine,  like  the  other,  contradicts  divine  justice:  for 
if  God  has  no  wrath  against  sin,  or  no  justice  to  punish  it,  which 
is  the  same  thing,  it  must  be  because  justice  is  not  an  attribute  of 
his  nature.  Sinners  deserve  punishment,  or  they  do  not;  if  they  de- 
serve it,  then  it  is  just  for  it  to  be  inflicted  on  them,  and  therefore 
t^jsay  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  God  to  inflict  punishments,  is 
to  say  it  is  contrary  to  his  nature  to  execute  justice  upon  unrelent- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATIOrf .  198 

jng  offenders:  if,  on  the  contrary,  they  do  not  deserve  it,  then  it  fol- 
Jows  that  there  is  no  demerit  or  ill-desert  in  transgression.  And 
if  misery  has  no  just  relation  to  moral  evil  (as  it  cannot  have  if  evil 
does  not  justly  deserve  it)  we  should  be  constrained  to  say  it  is  as 
righteous  a  thing  to  punish  men  for  doing  good  as  for  doing  evil. 
Thus  the  dictates  of  reason  and  conscience  would  be  contradicted, 
all  moral  distinctions  confounded,  no  difference  left  between  right 
and  wrong,  and  we  should  find  ourselves  let  loose  into  the  wide 
fields  of  atheism. 

3.  It  also  destroys  the  scripture  doctrine  of  forgiveness:  for  if 
sinners  deserve  no  punishment  from  God,  or  stand  exposed  to  no 
penalty,  there  is  no  sentence  to  be  remitted,  and  of  course  a  par- 
don would  be  a  mere  sham  that  could  afford  them  no  more  securi- 
ty than  they  possess  without  it.  Their  actions,  in  a  moral  view, 
must  deserve  punishment,  be  entitled  to  reward,  or  be  entirely  in- 
differentj  and  if  they  deserve  no  punishment,  to  talk  of  forgiving 
them  would  be  a  ridiculous  pretence  of  granting  pardon  to  those 
actions  which  were  either  rewardable  or  totally  indifferent  in  their 
nature. 

If  there  be  no  ill-desert  in  disobedience,  we  are  not  bound  either 
to  obey  our  Maker,  or  to  be  just  to  our  fellow  creatures;  for  the 
sole  reason  sinners  deserve  punishment,  if  they  do  deserve  it,  is, 
that  they  injure  others  and  act  in  defiance  of  moral  obligation. 
And  if  we  be  not  morally  obliged  to  obey  our  Maker,  he  has  no 
right  to  demand  our  obedience,  and  therefore,  all  his  demands 
upon  us  would  be  unjust,  because  it  were  demanding  of  us  that  to 
which  he  has  no  right.  It  follows  that  our  obligation  to  obey,  and 
God's  right  to  punish  for  disobedience  must  stand  or  fall  together, 
and  if  we  deny  them,  we  cut  dqwn  at  one  stroke,  all  religion  and 
morality. 

We  must  therefore  renounce  these  two  systems,  which  would 
make  the  pardon  of  sinners  impossible  or  unnecessary;  we  must 
reject  the  notion  that  Christ  died  to  raise  the  sinner  above  the 
want  of  pardon,  by  discharging  all  claims  against  him,  as  well  ag 
this  latter  one  which  teaches  that  the  laws  of  God  have  no  penal 
sanctions;  and  we  mustmaintain  with  the  apostle  that  "we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  acco^:- 
ding  to  the  riches  of  his  grace."  Eph.  1.  7. 


194  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 


SECTION  II. 


The  nature  of  justice  and  benevolence  considered,  in  their  relation 
to  each  other. 

Dr.  Reid  must  be  considered  as  standing  among  the  most  dili- 
gent and  candid  inquirers  after  truth:  and  he  had  as  clear  con- 
ceptions of  intellectual  and  moral  subjects,  perhaps,  as  any  man 
that  ever  lived.  His  account  of  justice  is  so  clear,  and  so  impor- 
tant, that  I  will  give  it  in  his  own  words,  and  notice  the  conclu- 
sions it  will  afford  us. 

"To  sum  up  what  has  been  said  on  this  point,"  says  he^^'a.  fa- 
vour, an  act  of  justice,  and  an  injunj  are  so  related  to  one  anotlier, 
that  he  who  conceives  one  must  conceive  the  other  too.  Tliey  lie, 
as  it  were,  in  one  line,  and  resemble  the  relations  of  greater,  less, 
and  equal.  If  one  understands  what  is  meant  by  one  line  being 
greater  or  less  than  another,  he  can  be  at  no  lo^s  to  understajid 
what  is  meant  by  its  being  equal  to  the  other:  for,  if  it  be  neither 
greater  nor  less,  it  must  be  equal. 

*'In  like  manner,  of  those  actions  by  which  we  profit  or  hurt 
other  men,  a  favour  is  more  than  justice,  an  injury  is  less;  and 
that  which  is  neither  a  favour  nor  an  injury  is  a,  just  action.''^ 

This  statement  is  very  clear,  and  must  recommend  itself  to  eve- 
ry man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God. 

But  when  we  illustrate  moral  principles  by  the  relation  of  great- 
er, less,  and  equal,  it  is  necessary  to  observe  thait  happiness  is  al- 
ways their  object.  A  favour  is  more  than  justice:  that  is,  when  you 
do  a  favour  you  give  a  person  more  happiness,  or  more  of  the 
means  which  are  essential  to  it,  than  he  has  a  right  to  demand  of 
you.  "An  injury  is  less:"  that  is,  you  injure  a  person  by  taking  or 
withholding  from  him  a  part  of  his  good  things,  whereby  you 
make  his  happiness,  or  the  means  of  it,  less  than  his  right  of  de- 
mand. 

Thus,  injustice  always  tends  to  enlarge  misery,  and  benevolence 
to  enlarge  happiness;  while  justice,  occupying  a  middle  ground, 
forbids  the  introduction  of  misery,  and  demands  the  maintenance 
of  happiness  in  exact  proportion  to  every  one's  right,  without  ei- 
ther forbiding  or  demanding  an  enlargement  of  it,  above  that 
standard.  Injustice  is  the  only  thing  that  justice  ever  can  forbid, 
because  it  is  the  only  thing  that  ever  sinks  below  her  demand: 
Bhe  has  nothing  to  forbid  or  to  enjoin  upon  benevolence,  because 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  195 

tiie  essential  nature  of  it  is,  not  only  to  secure  her  full  demand,  but 
to  rise  above  it,  and  bestow  more  happiness  than  justice  had  aright 
to  claim. 

But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  can  justice  relinquish  its  demand  in 
behalf  of  mercy,  in  the  pardon  of  a  criminal?  Answer,  the  de- 
mand of  justice  is,  that  the  rights  of  the  innocent  shall  be  secured; 
benevolence  will  never  grant  pardon  in  any  other  way  but  that 
which  secures  them;  and  therefore  justice  never  relinquishes  her 
demand. 

The  office  of  justice  is  to  defend  the  public  welfare,  which  this 
attribute  alone  can  only  do  by  punishing  the  guilty;  but  benevo- 
lence interposes,  and  pledges  herself,  not  only  to  secure  the  public 
welfare,  but  also  to  extend  the  means  of  happiness  to  the  guilty. 
This  is  doing  more  than  justice  alone  could  do,  whereas  injustice 
consists  in  doing  less:  consequently  the  demand  of  justice  is  not 
relinquished,  but  is  completely  satisfied,  seeing  all  the  happiness 
19  secured  which  was  demanded,  and  even  more  than  was  demand- 
ed. 

As  the  object  of  justice  is  to  defend  happiness,  it  can  never  be 
dissatisfied  with  benevolence  for  enlarging  it,  nor  with  the  means 
that  are  necessary  to  accomplish  the  end. 

If  the  innocent  voluntarily  suft'er  a  temporary  evil,  to  secure  an 
eternal  good  to  others,  this  can  i>ever  be  unjust;  otherwise  we  say 
the  innocent  have  no  right  to  be  benevolent,  except  in  those  cases 
in  which  it  will  cost  them  nothing. 

Justice  and  injustice  are  contradictory  to  each  other:  the  former 
tending  to  maintain  happiness,  and  the  latter  to  destroy  it:  the 
former  including  a  regard  to  the  general  welfare,  and  the  latter  a 
disregard  of  it.  This  will  surely  be  granted  by  every  man  in  the 
world. 

Now  as  justice  and  injustice  are  contradictory  to  each  otherj 
benevolence  must  of  necessity  agree  with  one  or  the  other  of  them: 
if  with  the  latter,  it  is  an  essential  principle  of  wickedness;  and  if 
with  the  former,  it  is  as  impossible  for  justice  and  mercy  to  contra- 
dict each  other  as  it  is  for  righteousness  and  wickedness  to  be  the 
same  thing. 

He  who  loves  the  principle  of  justice,  delights  to  see  all  crea- 
tures enjoy  the  full  degree  of  happiness,  which  God  has  given 
them  a  right  to  claim:  he  who  loves  the  principle  of  benevolence, 
delights  to  see  them  enjoy  their  full  right  of  demand,  and  if  they 
need  it,  something  more:  these  persons  both  agree  to  delight  in 
geQ«ral  happiness,  and  coBsequently  they  agree  in  their  opposi- 


196  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE. 

tion  to  that  injustice,  which  if  not  prevented,  would  fill  the  uni-' 
verse  with  misery. 

From  what  has  been  said  we  may  deduce  the  following  plaiu 
and  interesting  conchisions. 

There  is  no  possible  way  for  one  person  to  violate  justice,  but 
by  injuring  another;  that  is,  by  doing  less  for  him  than  he  has  a 
right  to  claim.  Consequently  an  act  of  the  deity,  or  of  any  other 
being,  which  does  not  infringe  upon  another's  right  of  demand,  is 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  purest  dictates  of  everlasting  right- 
eousness. 

2.  An  act  of  benevolence,  being  no  injury,  but  the  contrary, 
stands  at  the  utmost  distance  from  injustice  of  any  thing  that  can 
possibly  be  imagined.  There  is  as  absolute  an  opposition  between 
them,  as  there  is  between  happiness  and  misery — light  and  dark- 
ness— or  any  other  opposites  in  nature.  To  deny  this,  is  to  say 
positively  that  God  never  exercised  kindness  to  any  living  crea- 
ture, or  that,  whenever  he  did  so,  he  was  guilty  of  injustice.  For  at 
the  moment  he  bestowed  a  favour,  he  had  a  right  to  withhold  it, 
otherwise  it  was  no  favour  at  all;  but  if  he  had  a  right  to  w  ithhold 
it,  then  it  was  just  for  him  to  do  so:  consequently  goodness  consists 
in  giving  up  a  right  which  justice  allows  us  to  retain.  Injustice, 
on  the  contrary,  consists  in  withholding  a  right  from  another,  which 
justice  demands  us  to  render,  and  does  not  allow  us  to  retain.  Any 
doctrine  therefore,  which  obviously  jumbles  perfect  goodness  and 
injustice  together,  as  though  they  were  the  same  thing,  is  most  ri- 
diculous and  senseless  confusion. 

3.  As  goodness  cannot  violate  justice,  when  God  graciously  and 
freely  forgives  a  sinner,  justice  is  as  perfectly  satisfied  as  it  would 
be  with  the  sinner's  damnation:  because  in  this  case  the  right  of  no 
being  is  withheld  from  him,  but  the  loving  Parent  of  all  mankind 
exercises  the  optional  right  of  goodness,  which  can  dissatisfy  no 
principle  but  that  of  unrelenting  barbarity  and  malevolence. 

4.  The  only  case  in  which  the  communication  of  happiness,  or 
the  diminution  of  misery,  can  be  unjust,  is  that  of  one  person  con- 
fering  a  particular  benefit  on  another,  not  from  the  principle  of  be- 
nevolence, but  from  that  of  partiality:  I  mean,  when  the  benefit  or 
privilege  allowed  to  one  will  tend  to  the  injury  of  others. 

We  will  suppose  a  number  of  murderers  are  taken  up  within 
this  commonwealth,  and  cast  into  prison.  They  all  deserve  to  die, 
and  if  they  were  immediately  pardoned  and  set  at  liberty,  justice 
would  not  be  satisfied.  Why?  Because  the  commonwealth  would 
be  endangered;  the  citizens  would  be  exposed  to  their  unrestrained 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  497 

Olalevolence;  their  rebellion  would  be  encouraged;  the  governor 
would  be  suspected  of  a  deficiency  in  <noral  principle;  his  adminis- 
tration would  be  brought  into  contempt;  disaft'ection  would  be  per- 
mitted to  spread  abroad  with  impunity;  anarchy  and  wretchedness 
would  advance  with  rapid  strides,  and  the  peace  of  the  common« 
wealth  would  stand  in  jeopardy  every  hour.  In  this  case  it  could 
not  accord  with  good  government,  nor  consequently  with  justice^ 
for  a  pardon  to  be  granted;  because  it  would  interfere  with  the 
rights  of  others,  and  the  governor,  in  setting  the  prisoners  at  li- 
berty, would  not  act  upon  the  principle  of  goodness,  which  always 
regards  the  general  welfare;  but  upon  that  oi' partiality,  which  in* 
variably  results  from  some  private  and  selfish  passion. 

On  what  condition  will  justice  be  satisfied,  and  allow  the  pri- 
soners to  be  pardoned  and  set  at  liberty?  ."Will  it  never  be  satis- 
fied till  the  prisoners  be  authorised,  by  some  means  or  other,  to 
demand  their  liberty,  and  the  governor  be  bound  to  render  it  as 
their  right.?  If  so,  justice  forbids  the  exercise  of  any  clemency,  and 
enjoins  on  the  governor  to  hold  the  prisoners  while  he  is  bound  to 
do  it,  and  to  set  them  at  liberty  only  because  he  is  equally  bound, 
and  cannot  refuse  it  without  violating  their  right  of  demand.  If 
this  be  our  opinion,  we  ought,  as  honest  men,  to  speak  out,  and  tell 
the  world  we  believe  the  eternal  demand  of  justice  is,  that  good- 
ness, mercy  and  compassion  should  be  excluded  from  God,  angels 
and  men. 

The  criminals  have  forfeited  their  right  to  life  and  liberty,  and 
the  right  to  execute  the  sentence  upon  them  is  now  in  the  govern- 
or, who,  for  the  security  of  the  public  welfare,  is  bound  to  execute 
them,  unless  it  can  be  secured  in  some  other  way. 

Now,  supposing  the  governor  to  be  possessed  of  power,  wisdom 
and  goodness  enough,  to  devise  and  execute  some  plan  through 
which  the  pardon  of  criminals  may  be  made  to  accord  with  the 
general  welfare;  who  will  say  that  he  thereby  abolishes  the  sin- 
ner's demerit,  and  gives  him  a  right  in  justice  to  demand  the  pri- 
vileges of  an  upright  citizen,  which  his  crimes  had  entirely  for- 
feitedf  Who  will  say  that  the  criminal's  right  would  be  violat- 
ed by  punishing  him  according  to  his  crimes?  It  is  evident  he  is 
as  void  of  any  right  to  be  exempt  from  punishment  as  he  was  be» 
fore,  and  can  only  look  for  deliverance  in  a  way  of  mercy. 

But  still  the  governor  may  act  unjustly  in  his  relation  to  the 

commonwealth,  by  refusing  to  grant  pardon,  when  the  proper  terms 

are  complied  with:  for,  as  the  plan  was  devised  and  executed  in 

the  presence  of  all,  with  tht  declared  intmtion  of  shewing  mercy 

C  c 


i»8  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

to  offenders,  and  thus  extending  happiness  as  far  as  it  could  be  ex- 
tended, consistently  with  the  principles  of  good  government;  the 
members  of  the  community  would  have  a  right  to  expect  an  ad- 
ministration according  to  the  benevolent  intention  that  had  been 
thus  openly  proclaimed. 

A  subsequent  departure  from  it  would  prove  a  want  of  veracity, 
and  a  manifest  deception  in  the  governor.  It  would  afford  a  just 
ground  for  suspicion,  that  the  original  plan  of  redeeming  those 
criminals  did  not  result  from  benevolence,  as  was  pretended,  but 
from  some  private  passion,  or  secret  partiality,  subversive  of  every 
just  and  equitable  government;  why  else  are  criminals  rejected, 
who  are  fully  disposed  to  avail  themselves  of  the  plan  of  mercy, 
and  to  comply  with  its  conditions? 

In  this  way  the  supposed  ruler  would  indeed  be  under  obliga- 
tion, but  not  from  the  crirainars  rigbt  of  exemption,  or  from  any 
thing  else  but  the  voluntary  pledges  of  his  own  truth  and  benevo- 
lence. 

By  applying  this  to  our  Maker's  government  of  the  moral 
world,  we  may  discover  the  harmony  of  justice  and  mercy  in  the 
salvation  of  a  sinner  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  Redeemer  makes 
it  accord  with  the  general  welfare  for  sin  to  be  forgiven,  by  a  full 
demonstration  of  the  divine  character  in  the  method  of  forgive- 
ness; but  God  is  not  thereby  brought  under  obligation  to  sin- 
ners, farther  than  he  has  graciously  condescended  to  bind  himself 
by  promise.  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  for- 
give us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness. 

5.  From  the  preceding  view  of  the  subject,  it  appears  that  be- 
nevolence is  the  only  thing  that  merits  reward  or  gratitude,  and 
injustice  is  the  only  source  of  demerit  and  punishment:  so  far  are 
they  from  being  one  and  the  same  thing! 

Every  one  knows  that  a  man  merits  nothing,  and  deserves  no 
thanks,  merely  for  paying  his  debts;  because  he  was  bound  in  jus- 
tice to  do  it,  and  did  nothing  more  than  his  duty.  But  when 
a  kind  friend,  on  whom  we  have  no  demand,  bestows  a  favour 
upon  us,  we  at  once  perceive  tliis  to  be  a  praise-worthy  action, 
and  feel  ourselves  bound  under  obligations  of  gratitude.  Had 
he  withheld  the  favour,  he  would  have  done  us  no  wrong, 
and  we  should  have  had  no  right  to  blame  or  censure  him  for  it: 
because,  as  the  benefactor  has  a  right  to  withhold  his  favours, 
there  could  be  no  demerit  in  his  retaining  that  which  was  entirely 
his  own. 

For  the  same  reason,  there  is  no  proper  merit  in  the  mere  dis- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  199 

cliarge  of  justice,  because  it  consists  in  rendering  that  which  is 
another^s  right,  and  which  we  have  not  the  option  to  retain.  If 
we  refuse  to  render  it,  in  violation  of  anotlier's  right;  this  is  the 
principle  and  conduct  which  deserves  reproach  and  misery,  be- 
cause it  inflicts  misery  on  others  which  they  do  not  deserve.  It 
operates  in  contradiction  to  justice,  by  infringing  upon  the  rights 
of  the  innocent:  and  in  opposition  to  goodness,  by  obslructicg  that 
fiow  of  happiness  which  it  w  ould  communicate:  yea,  it  sets  at  de- 
fiance every  just  and  amiable  principle  of  morality,  and  would,  if 
not  prevented,  despoil  angels  of  their  felicity,  and  involve  the 
whole  creation  in  misery  and  ruin. 

Hence  it  appears  that  injustice  tends  to  the  diminution  of  hap- 
piness, and  to  the  increase  of  misery;  whilst  benevolence,  pursue 
ing  a  contrary  direction,  is  ever  delighted  to  assuage  the  grief  of 
the  miserable,  and,  if  possible,  to  banish  all  wretchedness  from 
the  creation.  The  former  always  implies  an  intention  to  injure  us, 
and  the  latter  an  intention  to  do  us  good:  for  if  we  be  accidentally- 
hurt  by  any  one,  or  accidentally  benefitted,  the  one  is  no  proof  of 
injustice,  nor  the  other  of  goodness;  because  a  voluntary  intention 
is  essential  to  all  the  responsible  actions  of  a  moral  agent;  and 
where  no  good  or  bad  intention  exists,  there  is  no  ground  for 
either  praise  or  blame;  otherwise  we  might  blame  or  praise  the 
actions  of  an  idiot,  or  even  the  operations  of  the  wind.  If  then 
those  two  principles  are  as  opposite  to  each  other  as  lieaven  \& 
from  hell— opposite  in  the  intention  of  the  agent,  in  his  actions, 
and  in  the  final  eflect  or  tendency  of  them,  how  absurd  must  that 
system  be  which  supposes  that  every  departure  from  the  inflexible 
standard  isalike  improper,  and  that  goodness  itself  is  unjust! 

Benevolence  is  the  source  of  all  happiness  in  the  creation.  If 
the  office  of  justice  were  to  enjoin  on  all  beings  to  do  whatever 
they  have  a  right  to  do,  God  would  have  been  bound  in  justice 
not  to   create  the   universe,  and  diff'use  his  multiplied  favours 

abroad:   because  lie  had  an    undoubted  risrht  to  withhold  them. 

o 

Had  he  confined  himself  to  this  standard,  and  resolved  not  to  do 
any  thing,  but  as  a  previous  obligation  enjoined,  it  is  evident,  unless 
some  rare  genius  can  demonstrate  that  we  eternally  had  a  right 
to  our  creation,  and  to  all  the  blessings  which  followed  it,  that 
his  actions  would  have  been  solely  confined  to  himself,  and  no  liv- 
ing creature  would  have  ever  existed.  But  if  the  display  of  his 
goodness  in  the  creation,  was  perfectly  just,  because  there  were 
no  other  beings  whose  rights  and  privileges  could  be  affected  by 
it;  by  a  parity  of  reason  it  follows,  that  it  is  perfectly  jijst  for 


300  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

God  to  deliver  guilty  sinners  from  misery,  whenever  it  ean  b« 
done,  without  infringing  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  others. 
Presuming  that  any  attempt  to  produce  additional  arguments  in 
defence  of  this  point,  would  insult  the  reader's  understanding, 
and  intrude  h|)ou  his  patience,  I  submit  these  to  his  candid  re^ 
flections. 


SECTION  lit 

^n  objection  answered. 

It  may  be  alleged,  that,  if  benevolence  imply  a  double  right, 
to  give  or  to  withhold,  then  all  men  have  a  right  to  live  without 
ever  bestowing  a  favour:  and  also,  when  thej  do  aji  act  of  kindness 
according  to  the  preceding  statements,  there  is  real  merit  in  their 
worksj  a  doctrine  totally  opposite  to  the  whole  spirit  and  letter  of 
the  gospel. 

In  answer  to  this  we  may  observe: 

1.  That  no  action  among  men  is  benevolent  as  it  relates  to  God, 
hut  only  in  relation  to  our  fellow-creatures.  They  have  no  right 
to  demand  it,  but  God  has  a  right  to  enjoin  the  performance  of  it, 
because  he  is  our  author,  and  we  are  dependant  on  his  goodness 
for  our  faculties,  and  for  all  our  ability  to  exercise  them.  To  him 
such  actions  are  a  mere  discharge  of  duty,  which  cannot  be  omit- 
ted without  ingratitude,  and  a  defiance  of  moral  obligation.  No 
actions  in  the  universe  are  absolutely  and  independently  benevo- 
lent, but  those  of  the  Deity  himself,  who  cannot  be  bound  in  duty 
to  any  superior  authority.  He  is  not  dependant  on  any  other  bcr 
ing  for  his  power  to  do  good,  and  therefore  his  right  of  option,  to 
give  or  withhold  his  favours,  is  perfectly  free  from  the  controul  of 
any  other  authority.  But  as  man's  power,  and  liberty,  and  very 
existence,  is  dependant  on  an  higher  arm,  so  is  his  right  of  option: 
he  is  therefore  bound  in  duly  to  the  creator,  even  in  the  eommuni. 
cation  of  his  faypurs,  though  his  fellow-creatures  have  no  inherent 
fight  of  demand. 

-2.  Hence  it  appears  that  men  are  not  at  liberty  to  live  without 
benevolence,  but  are  bound  by  divine  authority  to  exercise  ijxeif 
flbility  in  acts  of  kindness,  as  well  as  in  those  of  justice. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  SM 

And  thougli  their  benevolent  actions  have  a  degree  of  merit  ia 
them,  and  are  deserving  gratitnde,  as  they  relate  to  their  fellow 
men,  yet  it  is  very  evident  they  merit  nothing  from  God,  because 
he  has  authority  to  command  us  to  do  good  to  our  brethren,  and 
after  we  have  done  all  that  he  has  commanded,  ive  are  unprofitable 
servants:  we  have  done  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do. 

Yet  there  is  more  moral  worth  in  those  actions  in  the  estima- 
tion of  God  himself,  than  in  acts  of  mere  justice  between  man 
and  man.  They  are  the  nearest  imitation  of  his  essential  na- 
ture of  any  thing  that  can  be  found  in  a  creature.  Benevolence 
is  the  highest  moral  attribute  of  the  Deity,  to  which  all  the  rest 
are  perpetually  subservient:  he  is  therefore  pleased  with  the  exer- 
cise of  it,  above  all  things  in  the  creation.  Mr.  Wesley  very 
rightly  observes,  "  The  scripture  doth  not  say  that  God  is  justice, 
or  that  he  is  truth,  though  he  is  just  and  true  in  all  his  ways;  but 
it  doth  say,  God  is  love.  He  is  love  in  the  abstract,  and  there  is  no 
end  of  his  goodness.  This  is  the  attribute  in  which  he  peculiar- 
ly delights,  in  which  he  glories  above  all  the  rest." 

It  is  therefore  evident,  from  the  nature  of  God,  that  such  ac^ 
tions  are  pleasing  to  him  in  a  high  degree,  and  though  in  their 
relation  to  him  they  are  not  properly  meritorious,  yet  they  are 
rewardable,  and  God  will  manifest  his  approbation  of  thenx 
through  eternity. 

The  Lord  Jesus  in  describing  the  day  of  judgment,  mentions 
acts  of  benevolence  alone,  as  being  of  great  price  in  the  sight  of 
God,  and  as  being  the  conditional  works  of  our  final  justification: 
f  Then  shall  the  king  say  to  them  on  his  right  hand,  come  ye  bless- 
ed of  my  father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world;  for  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me 
meat:  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink:  1  was  a  stranger,  and 
ye  took  me  in:  naked,  and  ye  clothed  me:  I  was  sick,  and  ye  visited 
me:  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  came  unto  me.  Inasmuch  as  ye  have 
done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it 
unto  me."  Matt.  xxv.  34,  &e. 

It  is  very  observable,  that  all  the  works  he  mentions  are  works 
of  charity  or  mercy,  as  they  relate  to  man,  though  in  their  relation 
to  God,  they  are  a  mere  discharge  of  duty;  because  it  is  impossi- 
ble  for  a  creature  to  do  more  than  his  duty  to  his  creator.  These 
works  can  only  flow  from  the  love  of  God,  for  there  is  no  moral 
virtue  in  acts  of  kindness,  which  result  only  from  animal  affec- 
tion, otherwise  there  is  virtue  even  in  the  actions  of  brute  beasts. 
Our  works  of  chanty  must  result  i'rom  a  love  of  goodness,  which  m 


202  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

the  same  thing  with  the  love  of  God;  for  God  is  lovt;  and  Tt-e  love 
him  because  he  is  good,  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  because  he 
jirst  loved  us. 

Nor  let  any  conclude,  that  since  charity  is  of  the  greatest  value, 
and  will  stand  so  high  in  the  day  of  judgment,  men  may  therefore 
be  discouraged  in  performing  acts  of  justice,  and  be  tempted  to 
neglect  them  under  pretence  of  preserving  more  time  for  the  per- 
formance of  greater  works:  for  it  is  impossible  for  an  unjust  man 
to  be  benevolent.  He  may,  indeed,  perform  acts  of  kindness  from 
some  selfish  principle,  or  animal  afteetion,  but  this  is  not  moral 
goodness,  because  he  does  not  act  from  a  regard  to  the  principle. 
Let  this  principle  perpetually  govern  his  soul,  and  he  will  not 
neglect  the  demands  of  justice,  or  bestow  favours  on  one  to  the  in- 
jury of  others,  which  is  not  goodness,  hut  partiality.  If  I  bestow 
that  upon  objects  of  charity,  which  ought  to  discharge  my  just 
debts,  and  thereby  defraud  my  creditors  of  their  right,  there 
is  surely  no  moral  vvorth  in  such  an  action,  but  it  results  from 
some  whimsical  delusion,  or  partial  fondness,  irreconcilable 
with  every  righteous  principle.  A  man  must  therefore  come  up 
to  the  standard  of  justice,  before  he  can  possibly  be  benevolent; 
because  "  a  favour  is  more  than  justice,  injustice  is  less;"  and  to 
suppose  a  man  can  be  benevolent  in  the  neglect  of  justice,  or  in 
doing  less  than  it  requires,  is  the  very  absurdity  that  has  been  re- 
futed  by  all  the  foregoing  arguments. 

Some  depend  for  salvation  upon  an  imaginary /jicfy,  which  pre- 
tends to  worship  God,  by  the  exercise  of  injustice  and  cruelty  to 
men;  others,  through  self-love  and  partiality  bestow  favours  on 
some,  while  they  defraud  others,  and  call  this  benevolence;  a 
third  class  pay  little  regard  either  to  piety  or  benevolence,  and 
value  themselves  much  upon  their  honesty;  but  when  the  saviour 
enumerated  our  rewardable  actions,  on  which  we  should  be  invit- 
ed to  our  father's  kingdom  iu  the  day  of  judgment,  he  did  not  men- 
tion common  honesty  as  one  of  them:  and  though  none  but  an  ho- 
nest man  can  do  the  works  he  mentions,  yet  according  to  his  ac^ 
count  of  the  matter,  no  man  will  be  rewarded  in  heaven  merely 
for  paying  his  debts,  and  discharging  the  common  demands  of  jus- 
tice. 

If  we  act  from  a  love  of  goodness,  mc  love  God,  who  is  the  foun- 
tain of  it:  this  includes  the  whole  exercise  of  true  piety.  We  also 
act  from  a  regard  to  the  general  happiness,  and  this  includes  the 
yery  principle,  and  leads  to  the  perfect  exercise  of  true  charity. 
The  office  of  justice  is  to  defend  that  happiness  whieh  goodness 


FLAN  OF  SALVATION  203 

communicates,  and  therefore  the  love  of  goodness  essentially  in- 
cludes the  lo^e  of  justice.  Thus  it  is  plain,  that  he  who  sincerely 
loves  God,  and  all  mankind;  he  who  hates  partiality  and  injus- 
tice, and  proves  it  by  corresponding  actions,  is  the  very  man  that 
possesses  moral  worth,  and  will  be  rewarded  in  heaven  with  ever- 
lasting happiness. 


SECTION  IV. 

The  fitness,  importance  and  necessity  of  redemption* 

Our  opponents  will  be  apt  to  insist,  that  the  doctrine  we  defend 
renders  the  death  of  Christ  unnecessary  and  contemptible;  for  if 
God  can  freely  forgive  sins,  before  justice  satisfies  itself  by  iiflict- 
ing  the  punishment  due  to  the  criminal,  they  would  have  us  con- 
clude that  Christ  died  in  vain,  and  evinced  the  folly  of  heavtn  in 
sending  us  a  saviour,  when  we  could  have  been  justly  pardoned 
and  saved  without  his  interposition. 

But  we  perfectly  agree  with  them  that  sinners  could  not  be  s£.ved 
consistently  with  the  divine  attributes,  but  through  a  mediator; 
and  also  that  our  saviour  did  actually  satisfy  justice  in  our  be- 
half. The  difterence  between  us  consists  in  these  two  particulars; 

1.  We  believe  Christ  died  to  make  it  just  for  God  to  pardon 
penitent  sinners;  whilst  their  system  supposes  he  died  to  give  an 
absolute  right  to  salvation,  independent  of  their  penitence,  and 
without  being  beholden  to  God  for  mercy  or  forgiveness. 

2.  They  think  the  death  of  Christ  satisfied  the  justice  of  God, 
considered  as  a  private  principle  that  demanded  full  vengeance 
for  every  crime;  we  on  the  contrary  believe  he  satisfied  the  justice 
of  God,  only  in  his  public  character,  as  moral  governor  of  the  uni- 
verse; or  in  other  words,  that  Christ  secured  the  ends  of  good  gov- 
ernment in  the  pardon  of  penitents,  as  efi'ectually  as  ii  would  have 
been  done  by  their  damnation. 

Do  our  views  of  the  subject  render  redemption  unnecessary?  Uo 
they  in  any  degree  diminish  the  glory  of  it,  as  represented  in  the 
scriptures?  I  think  not.  And  I  moreover  think  the  charge  fafls  just- 
ly  upon  the  opposite  system,  and  hope  t»  make  it  appear  by  the 


m4f  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

1.  If  they  grant  the  wliole  punishment  was  not  endured,  whicis 
was  due  to  sin,  they  concede  tJie  very  thing  for  which  we  contend? 
namely,  that  justice  can  be  satisfied  without  an  infliction  of  the 
whole  penalty.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  ihey  declare  the  whole 
must  of  necessity  be  endured  before  justice  can  be  satisfied,  it  fol- 
lows, that,  wjiatever  effect  redemption  might  produce,  it  could  not 
diminish  the  misery  which  was  incurred  by  moral  evil.  And  if  the 
same  quantnm  of  misery  take  place,  upon  the  plan  of  redemplion, 
that  would  have  existed  without  it,  there  is  no  other  principle 
from  which  we  can  conclude  redemption  necessary,  but  the  un- 
scriptura)  hypothesis,  "that  penal  sufferings  must  never  be  dimi- 
nished, but  must  be,  transfered  fron>  the  guilty  to  the  innocent.  If 
redemption  did  notliing  towards  the  diminution  of  misery,  what 
goodness  was  displayed  in  it,  unless  we  say  benevolence  consists 
in  nothing  else  than  the  transfer  of  punishment  from  the  guilty  to 
the  innocent.^ 

.  2.  Our  opponents  themselves  explain  the  penalty  of  God's  bro* 
ken  Iftw  to  be  "death,  temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal."  Now  God 
can,  consistently  with  his  attributes,  diminish  this  penalty,  and 
infliflt  but  a  part  of  it,  or  he  cannot;  if  he  can,  then  it  was  not  ne- 
cessfiry  for  the  whole  to  be  endured  by  the  Redeemer;  if  he  cannot, 
it  plfiinly  follows  that  all  mankind  must  yet  be  damned,  unless  it 
can  he  proved  "that  the  Lord  Jesus  suflered  death  temporal,  spi- 
ritual and  eternal."  The  word  of  God  assures  us  that  he,  having 
once  suffered  for  sins,  now  suffereth  again  no  more,  but  is  exalted 
above  all  principality  and  power,  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on  high.  I  never  yet  heard  any  one  profess  to  believe,  much  less 
attempt  to  prove,  that  Jesus  Christ  suffered  everlasting  punish-^ 
nient  even  for  the  elect  themselves;  but  this  is  (confessedly)  the 
punishment  which  the  law  required  of  them,  and  which  consti- 
tutes the  penalty  that  must  be  inflicted  to  the  very  last  mite,  before 
justice  can  l^e  satisfied:  therefore  the  elect  must  yet  suffer  death 
eternal,  anrjjredemption  has  accomplished  "  a  solemn  nothing." 

3,  I  woultl  be  glad  to  know  whether  punishment  be  the  only 
thing  that  c^n  satisfy  justice,  in  its  relation  to  a  sinner;  or  whe- 
ther benevolence  can  render  any  satisfaction,  and  thus  diminish 
the  extent  of  misery.^  If  benevolence  can  do  this,  I  conclude,  if  the 
death  of  Christ  satisfied  justice,  in  its  relation  to  the  government^ 
and  God's  benevolence  satisfied  it  in  its  relation  to  his  individual 
right  of  punishing,  a  complete  and  entire  satisfaction  is  thus  ren- 
dered, and  yet  we  are  all  dependent  on  the  divine  clemency  for 
jusli Ucation,  and  have  no  legal  deoiaud  upon  our  Creator. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  205 

If  it  be  said,  on  the  contrary,  that  nothing  can  satisfy  this  at^ 
tribute  but  punishment,  I  would  ask  again,  whether  it  demand 
that  the  guilty  should  suffer,  or  whether  it  be  indifferent  to  justice 
who  is  punished,  provided  the  whole  penalty  be  endured?  If  the 
latter,  it  follows  that  all  the  devils  might  now  be  taken  out  of  hell, 
and  justice  would  be  satisfied,  provided  as  many  holy  angels  were 
put  in  their  place,  seeing  it  is  a  matter  of  inditterence  who  endures 
the  misery.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  nothing  can  give  satisfaction 
but  the  punishment  of  the  guilty,  the  sufferings  of  an  innocent  Sa- 
viour would  be  of  no  avail,  and  the  redemption  of  mankind  would 
be  absolutely  unrighteous,  and  therefore  impossible. 

4.  If  it  be  granted  that  goodness  can  satisfy  justice,  in  its  rela- 
tion to  God's  individual  right,  all  objections  against  our  system 
are  gone  at  once:  for  if  Christ  died  only  to  make  it  just  for  sinners, 
on  certain  conditions,  to  be  forgiven,  and  left  the  sentence  still  in 
force  against  them,  till  it  should  be  blotted  out  by  the  divine  com- 
passion, it  cannot  hence  be  concluded  that  justice  is  only  satisfied 
inparlj  because  the  act  of  goodness  in  the  grant  of  pardon,  renders 
the  satisfaction  complete  and  entire. 

But  if  we  deny  the  merit  of  goodness,  and  maintain  that  mere 
punishment  is  the  only  thing  which  is  effectual  to  a  sinner's  sal- 
vation, it  would  follow,  that  Christ  must  necessarily  suffer  as  much 
real  torment  as  all  his  ransomed  creatures  ever  deserved,  before 
they  could  be  redeemed  or  delivered  from  the  sentence.  This  is  re- 
presenting him  to  suffer  as  a  criminal,  which,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
injustice  of  it,  supposes  the  suft'eriug  of  sinners,  and  those  of  their 
Saviour,  are  exactly  equal  in  merit;  seeing  all  merit,  availa- 
ble for  the  guilty,  is  supposed  to  consist  only  in  the  degree  of  mi- 
sery endured. 

What  was  it  that  rendered  the  death  of  Jesus  peculiarly  meri- 
torious.^ Was  it  necessary  for  sin  to  be  imputed  to  him,  and  for  him 
to  die  a  real  criminal?  just  the  contrary:  he  suffered,  being  inno- 
cent, for  the  sake  of  sparing  the  guilty,  and  his  whole  merit,  as  a 
Saviour,  consisted  in  that  voluntary  goodness  which  influenced 
him  "that  was  rich  in  glory  to  become  poor,  that  we  through  his 
poverty  might  be  rich."     • 

I  presume  all  men  will  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  merit  in 
the  sufferings  of  the  damned,  because  they,  as  criminals,  deserve 
it,  and  suffer  the  whole  as  a  penalty  of  justice.  But  there  was 
great  merit  in  the  sufferings  of  our  Saviour;  therefore  he  did  not 
suffer  as  acriminal,  by  becoming  guilty  in  their  place,  but  endured 
the  whole  asa  burden  assumed  by  voluntary  kindness,  and  this  con- 
stitutes the  meritorious  efficacy  of  his  death,  for  our  salvation. 
Dd 


J06  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

There  would  have  been  no  peciillar  merit  in  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  had  he  been  bound  in  justice  to  endure  the  whole;  no  dig- 
nity of  person  would  have  increased  their  merit,  because  the  mere 
payment  of  a  debt  or  the  discharge  of  a  just  obligation,  is  no  more 
meritorious  in  a  prince  or  other  ruler,  than  a  like  action  in  the 
meanest  subject  of  his  dominions.  It  is  true  Christ's  peculiar  me- 
rit consisted  in  the  dignity  of  his  person;  because  he  being  God 
over  all  blessed  forever,  was  far  above  the  law  given  to  creatures, 
,  and  was  under  no  obligation  to  obey  or  to  suffer.  Had  he  been  thus 
bound  to  suffer,  his  death  would  have  been  of  no  avail,  unless  we 
suppose  there  is  great  merit  in  a  person's  suffering  what  justice 
requires  of  him,  jvhich  were  to  attribute  merit  to  the  sufferings  of 
devils:  therefore  the  benevolence  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  was  the  foun- 
tain of  his  merit,  and  was  the  only  thing  which  rendered  his  death 
effectual  to  our  redemption  and  salvation. 

Now  if  it  be  granted,  (J.)  that  our  Saviour's  goodness  was  the 
sinirce  of  his  merit,  and  (3.)  that  merit  is  the  thing  that  satisfies 
justice  in  behalf  of  sinners,  it  will  follow  that  Christ  was  not,  by 
imputation,  constituted  a  criminal,  or  else  that  there  was  no  merit 
in  his  death:  for  there  is  no  benevolence,  and  therefore  no  merit, 
in  a  criminal  suffering  what  justice  requires  of  him. 

Dr.  Crisp,had  the  boldness  to  declare,  on  the  contrary,  that  "God 
makes  Christ  as  very  a  sinner  as  the  creature  himself  was." 
Again,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Williams,  page  370:  "Nor  are  we  so  com- 
pletely sinful,  but  Christ,  being  made  sin,  was  as  completely  sin- 
ful as  we." — And  it  is  well  known,  that  Luther,  in  one  of  his  un- 
guarded moments,  called  Christ*  the  greatest  sinner  in  the  world. 
See  Fletchers  Checks,  vol.  2.  page  339. 

*  "And  this,  no  doubt,  all  the  prophets  did  foresee  in  spirit,  that 
Christ  should  become  the  greatest  Transgressor,  Murderer,  Adul- 
terer, Thief,  Rebel  and  Blasphemer,  that  ever  was  or  could  be 
in  the  world.  For  he  being  made  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  is  not  now  an  innocent  person  and  without  sins,  is 
not  now  the  Son  of  God  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary:  but  a  sinner 
which  hath  and  carrieth  the  sin  of  Paul,  who  was  a  blasphemer, 
an  oppressor  and  persecutor;  of  Peter,  which  denied  Christ;  of 
David,  which  was  an  adulterer,  amurderer,and  caused  the  gentiles 
to  blaspheme  the  name  of  the  Lord.  When  the  law  therefore,  found 
him  among  thieves,  it  condemned  and  killed  him  as  a  thief. — If  it 
be  not  absurd  to  confess  and  believe,  that  Christ  was  crucified  be- 
tween two  theives,  then  it  is  not  absurd  to  say  also  that  he  was 
accursed,  and  of  all  sinners  the  greatest." 

Luther's  commentary  on  St  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Galations,  Lou- 
don edition,  177-i:  page  303. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  2or 

As  the  counter  part  of  tliis,  we  have  been  taught  to  believe  that 
the  merits  and  righteousness  of  Christ  are  really  transferred,  or 
made  over  to  us  by  imputation,  just  as  he  was  made  guilty  by  ha- 
ving our  sins  imputed  to  him. 

"To  deny,  therefore,  that  God  imputes  righteousness  to  an  elecl. 
while  he  is  full  of  unrighteousness;  or  to  suppose  that  he  imputes 
sin  to  an  apostate,  who  is  sold  under  sin,  is  but  a  decent  way  of  de- 
nying the  imputation  of  our  personal  sins  to  Christ,  and  the  vica- 
rious satisfaction  which  he  made  on  the  cross. 

••To  detect  the  fallacy  of  this  argument,"  says  Mr.  Fletcher, 
"we need  only  observe,  (i.)  that  God  never  accounted  Christ  com- 
pletely guilty.  Such  expressions  as  these.  He  made  him  sin  for  us: 
He  laid  on  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all,  &c.  are  only  Hebrew  idioms, 
which  signify,  that  God  appointed  Christ  a  sacrifice  for  sin;  and 
that  the  chastisement  of  our  forfeited  peace  was  upon  him:  which 
no  more  implies,  that  God  put  on  his  back,  by  an  absolute  imputa- 
tion, a  robe  of  unrighteousness,  woven  with  all  the  sins  of  the  elect 
to  make  him  completely  guilty,  than  St.  Luke,  when  he  informs  us, 
that  the  Virgin  Mary  ofiered  two  young  pigeons  for  her  purifica- 
tion, supposes  her  ceremonial  uncleanuess  was,  somehow,  woven 
into  a  couple  of  little  garments,  and  put  upon  the  back  of  two  pi- 
geons, which  by  that  means,  were  made  completely  unclean. 

'Gallio  gets  drunk,  and  as  he  reels  home  from  his  midnight  re- 
vels, he  breaks  thirty -six  lamps  in  the  streets,  and  sends  out  vol- 
lies  of  curses  to  the  number  of  two  hundred.  He  is  brought  before 
you,*  and  you  insist  on  his  going  to  the  house  of  correction,  or  pay- 
ing so  much  money  to  buy  three  dozen  of  lamps,  besides  the  usual 
fine  for  his  profane  language.  As  he  is  not  worth  a  groat,  his  sober 
brother  Mitio  kindly  offers  to  lay  down  the  sum  for  him.  You  ac- 
cept of  the  vicarious  satisfaction,  and  binding  the  rake  to  his 
good  behaviour,  you  release  him  at  his  brother's  request.  Now 
sir,  would  you  be  reasonable,  if  you  reckoned  Mitio  completely 
guilty  of  getting  drunk,  swearing  two  hundred  oaths,  and  break- 
ing thirty  six  lamps.^ 

*And  will  you  defend  a  doctrine  which  charges  God  with  a  mis- 
take ten  thousand  times  more  glaring,  than  that  you  would  be 
guilty  of,  if  you  really  reckoned  Metio  an  abandoned  rake,  and 
Gallio  a  man  of  an  exemplary  conduct?  Will  you  indeed  recom- 
mend still  as  gospel,  an  opinion  which  supposes,  that  the  God  of 
everlasting,  unchangeable  love,  once  loathed  and  abhorred  his  be- 

*  Mr.  Hill  being  a  magistrate,  he  is  here  addressed  as  such. 


m  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

loved  Son;  and  that  the  God  of  invariable  truth  could  once  say  to 
the  holy  Jesus,  'Thou  art  all  foul,  O  thou  defiled  object  of  my  ha^ 
tred,  there  is  no  purity  in  (hee;'  while  he  addresses  a  bloody  adul- 
terer with,  'Thou  art  all  fair,  my  love,  my  undefiled,  there  is  no 
spot  in  thee?"  Fletcher's  Works,  vol.  2,  page  163,  IG*, 

To  Mr  Fletcher's  just  and  ingenious  illustration,  we  may  add 
the  following  plain  consequences  of  the  Antinomian  system  of  im- 
putation. 

1.  If  our  sins  were  actually  imputed  to  Christ,  to  make  him 
completely  guilty;  we  are  delivered  from  the  curse,  not  through 
the  merit  of  Christ's  death,  but  by  virtue  of  God's  act  of  imputa- 
tion,  whereby  we  are  constituted  innocent;  and  Christ,  being  as  ve- 
ry a  sinner  as  the  creature  himself  was,  is  bound  injustice  to  suf- 
fer the  whole  penalty  for  himself, 

2.  It  was  just  for  the  Lord  of  glory  to  be  charged  with  our 
crimes,  and  the  guilt  vf  them  absolutely  transferred  from  us  to  him, 
or  it  was  not;  if  it  was  not,  the  doctrine  we  oppose  is  false,  or  God 
is  an  unjust  being;  if  it  was,  then  he  suffered  nothing  but  what  in 
justice  he  deserved,  and  consequently  there  was  no  more  merit  iii 
hi*  death,  than  there  is  in  the  death  of  any  other  sinner. 

3.  If  this  mysterious  doctrine  of  imputation  be  true,  we  must 
necessarily  receive  the  following  jumble  of  contradictions;  that 
Christ  w  as  a  sinner  and  yet  a  meritorious  saviour — that  he  was 
guilty  and  not  guilty — innocent  and  not  innocent — that  we  are 
guilty  and  not  guilty — innocent  and  not  innocent — that  God  i^ 
good,  but  refuses  to  be  gracious. — and  that  he  is  just  in  the  viola- 
tion of  justice. 

4.  Lastly,  if  the  merits  and  righteousness  pf  Christ  be  actualr 
Jy  transferred  to  us  by  imputation,  we  are  all  as  completely  right- 
eous and  meritorious  as  ever  he  was,  unless  our  objectors  will  leap 
into  another  contradiction,  and  say  his  righteousness  is  imputed 
{ind  not  imputed — his  merit  made  oyer  to  us  and  not  made  over, 
at  the  same  time.  This  would  not  constitute  us  ransomed  sinners, 
hut  gracious  saviours  of  the  world,  possessing  the  whole  right- 
eousness and  merit  of  that  sacred  cliaracter. 

These  conclusions  arc  too  obvious  to  be  denied,  and  too  ridicu- 
lous to  be  admitted,  by  any  unprejudiced,  reflecting  mind;  and  I 
hope  the  lovers  qf  truth  will  not  receive  such  inconsiderate  and 
absurd  opinions  under  the  popish  cover  of  "holy  mysteries,"  nor 
\ie  dissuaded  from  a  diligent  search  and  inquiry,  through  the 
groundless  fear  that  truth  will  be  exposed,  and  error  established, 
by  a  close  and  candid  examination;  or,  as  some  would  express  it, 
by  "carnal  reasonings  and  metaphysical  distinctions." 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  20.9 

Perhaps  our  opponents,  in  reply  to  the  doctrine  of  this  section, 
■will  declare  they  never  taught  nor  believed  that  Christ  suffered 
the  entire  degree  of  punishment  that  was  due  to  sinners;  but  that 
he  rendered  that  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  which  was  equiva- 
lent to  the  whole  penalty.     We  answer: 

1.  If  our  sins  were  really  imputed  to  Christ,  and  if  nothing  but 
punishment  can  render  satisfaction  for  them,  he  must  of  necessity 
suffer  the  whole  that  was  required,  and  nothing  less  could  be  re- 
ceived as  equivalent;  but  if  there  is  merit  in  every  act  of  the  re- 
deemer's  goodness,  with  which  divine  justice  is  satisfied,  then  our 
doctrine  is  true,  that  benevolence  was  the  source  of  our  saviour's 
merit,  Avliich  made  it  just  for  sinners  to  have  a  probation  granted 
them;  and  that  his  benevolence  in  the  grant  of  pardon,  is  also  me- 
ritorious, and  makes  it  just  for  sinners  (when  renewed)  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  heaven. 

2.  In  what  sense  was  the  death  of  Christ  equivalent  to  the  pe- 
nalty.'' Not  in  the  degree  of  punishment;  and  I  would  fain  hope  no 
person  will  say  it  was  so,  in  the  degree  of  guilt.  In  merit  it  was 
more  than  equivalent;  for  I  presume  there  is  no  merit  at  all  in  a 
f)erson's suffering  what  he  deserves,  and  therefore  a  sinner's  suffer- 
ing what  he  deserves,  is  not  meritorious.  Do  they  mean  that  the 
death  of  Jesus  was  equivalent  to  the  penalty  in  the  effects  produc- 
ed by  it,  or  in  the  satisfaction  it  rendered  to  the  divine  nature? 
I  believe  in  both  these  respects  it  was  more  than  equal  to  the 
damnation  of  all  sinners:  for  it  not  only  displayed  God's  holiness 
and  hatred  against  sin,  which  their  damnation  would  have  done, 
hut  procured  a  day  of  mercy  and  salvation  for  all  mankind,  and 
opened  the  way  for  goodness  to  diffuse  its  benign  influences  even 
to  the  guilty,  which  an  infliction  of  the  penalty  would  never  have 
accomplished.  And  the  divine  nature  was  certainly  better  satisfi- 
ed with  the  death  of  Christ,  than  with  the  condemnation  of  all  re- 
bels, otherwise  they  would  have  been  condemned,  and  the  saviour 
would  never  have  come  into  the  world.  God  was  more  glorified,  or 
his  attributes  were  more  extensively  displayed,  by  redeeming  sin- 
ners, than  by  consigning  them  all  to  perdition,  because  his  wonder- 
ful goodness,  benignity  and  wisdom,  were  manifested  in  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners,  and  this  was  done  in  perfect  concord  with  his  jus- 
tice and  impartiality. 

If  by  equivalent,  our  opponents  mean  that  Christ's  death,  though 
not  equal  in  punishment  to  the  requirements  of  the  law,  yet  gave 
the  sinner  as  absolute  a  discharge  or  deliverance  from  guilt  and 
demerit  as  he  had  before  sin  entered  into  the  world,  the  conse- 


210  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

quence  is,  that  all  for  whom  the  redeemer  died,  are  perfectly  se- 
cure and  innocent  in  the  midst  of  all  their  crimes. 

We  must  maintain  that  this  scheme  would  prove  that  his  death 
was  not  equal  to  an  execution  of  the  sentence  upon  all  offenders: 
for,  (1.)  how  is  his  holiness  or  hatred  against  sin  displayed,  if  he  es- 
tablishes a  plan  of  redemption,  which  gives  his  creatures  full  li- 
berty to  sin  without  any  danger,  or  possibility  in  justice,  of  ever 
being  punished  for  it?  Where  is  his  general  goodness  and  impar- 
tiality, if  a  few  are  thus  absolutely  saved,  and  the  rest  as  uncon- 
ditionally neglected,  reprobated  and  danmed?  What  becomes  of 
his  wisdom,  if  he  puts  the  reigns  of  government  out  of  his  hands, 
gives  all  mankind  a  sham  trial;  threatens  his  elect  with  hell  if 
they  repent  not,  and  invites  reprobates  to  partake  of  the  waters 
of  life  freely,  when  he  cannot  punish  the  former,  or  reward  the 
latter,  without  being  wnjust?  Where  is  his  justice  and  equity,  if 
his  innocent  creatures  were  placed  in  a  state  from  which  they 
might  fall  and  perish  forever,  and  his  guilty  ones  in  a  state  of 
sham  trial,  in  which  they  are  absolutely  secure  in  the  midst  of  all 
their  abominations?  What  is  this  but  manifesting  a  complacency 
for  wickedness,  and  even  reAvarding  it  with  that  safety  and  uncon- 
ditional assurance  of  eternal  life,  which  Adam  in  paradise,  and 
ihe  very  angels  in  heaven  were  not  in  possession  of? 

And  if  we  say  he  died  for  ail  mankind,  and  discharged  every  de- 
mand thatjustice  can  have  against  any  of  Adam's  race,  then  all  must 
Lave  a  sham  trial,  and  be  unconditionally  saved,  in  which  case 
sin,  in  the  finally  impenitent,  will  be  rewarded,  and  God's  appro- 
bation of  it  declared;  or  else,  standing  in  a  state  of  real  probation, 
all  impenitent  sinners  must  be  condemned,  and  the  Almighty 
would  thereby  display  an  act  of  unrighteousness,  by  requiring  the 
same  penalty  twice  over,  or  by  execuling  t!iosc  against  whom  jus- 
tice had  no  demand.  If  Christ  by  his  death  satisfied  every  de- 
mand that  ever  justice  had,  or  now  has,  against  (he  sons  and  daugh- 
ters of  Adam,  we  are  all  absolutely  free  from  all  penalties: 
otherwise  you  say  justice  has  been  fully  satisfied,  and  not  fully 
satisilcd;  has  received  its  whole  demand  against  sinners,  and  not 
received  it,  at  the  same  time. 

Thus  it  appears  the  system  we  oppose,  renders  redemption  use- 
less, unjust  and  contradictory:  useless,  because  it  teaches  that  the 
whole  penalty  must  of  necessity  be  endured;  but  (his  penalty  i* 
death  eternal,  which  Christ  never  suffered,  and  tkerefore  all  sin- 
ners are  left  without  hope  and  without  remedy.  Unjust,  inas- 
much as  it  presents  a  false  charge  of  guilt  against  the  innoceut 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  211 

redeemer,  (by  imputation,)  that  he  may  sufter  according  to  his  de- 
merit. Contradictory,  in  declaring  that  ail  demands  of  the  law 
have  been  discharged,  and  yet  that  they  continue  in  full  force:  that 
all  our  guilt  has  been  transferred  to  a  surety,  >vho  has  satisfied 
every  claim  in  his  own  person,  and  yet  that  we  remain  guilty 
children  of  wrath,  who  >vill  be  everlastingly  damned  unless  we 
repent  and  obtain  forgiveness:  finally,  that  God's  law  has  but  one 
penalty  against  sinners,  the  whole  of  which  has  been  actually  en- 
dured, and  yet  thousands  shall  suffer  eternal  punishment  for  the 
very  sins  that  have  thus  been  completely  expiated;  and  we  must 
neither  call  this  the  same  penalty  which  the  redeemer  suffered, 
nor  any  other  one;  but  must  receive  the  whole  in  jumbled  confu- 
sion, without  presuming  to  indulge  "the  almost  magical  power 
of  our  metaphysical  distinctions."*  These  strange  mysteries  must 
be  believed  and  defended,  it  seems,  for  the  honour  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  support  the  glory  of  redemption!  I  hope,  however, 
that  a  candid  survey  of  the  following  section  will  convince  the 
judicious  reader,  that  the  dignity  and  importance  of  our  holy  re- 
ligion, can  be  supported  upon  very  different  principles. 


SECTION  V. 

The  same  subject. 

To  understand  the  scheme  of  redemption  correctly,  it  is  neces- 
ry  to  trace  the  economy  of  providence,  and  the  principles  of  mo- 


is  the  proper  foundation  of  all  just  conclusions  in  divinity,  and  un- 
less we  bring  our  views  of  redemption  to  this  criterion,  our  infer- 
ences are  drawn  in  the  dark,  and  we  know  not  what  we  say,  nor 
whereof  we  affirm.  We  will  therefore,  as  the  foundation  of  our 
superstructure,  lay  down  the  following  positions,  some  of 
which  will  be  admitted  without  hesitation,  and  the  others  I  trust, 
shall  be  supported  by  correct  and  conclusive  evidence. 

1.  The  Almighty  riiler  of  the  heavens   and  the   earth,  being 


See  Mr.  Shirley's  Reply,  to  Mr.  Fletcher^s  Vindication. 


2t2  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE. 

glorious  in  holiness,  and  perfect  in  goodness,  enjoys  unceasing  and 
infinite  felicity. 

2.  This  complete  and  perfect  happiness  is  not  derived  from  any 
thing  foreign  from  himself,  but  results  from  the  harmony  and  per- 
fection of  all  his  eternal  attributes. 

3.  He  is  perfectly  free  and  voluntary  in  all  his  actions,  because 
he  is  omnipotent,  and  cannot  be  controuUed  by  any  other  power 
or  authority.  To  deny  his  free  agency,  is  to  ascribe  our  being 
and  happiness  to  necessity,  seeing  if  God  be  not  a  free  agent,  they 
depended  not  upon  his  liberty  of  option,  and  could  not  be  other- 
wise than  they  are.  It  is  to  deny  that  power  belongeth  unto  God; 
because  a  power  to  do  any  thing,  includes  a  power  to  leave  it  un- 
done, and  to  affirm  a  being  has  power,  who  is  destitute  of  agency, 
is  an  absolute  contradiction. 

4.  There  is  no  immoral  principle  in  his  nature,  and  no  error  or 
mistake  can  ever  enter  into  his  infinite  mind;  therefore  God  can* 
not  be  tempted  w  ith  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man.  It  is  im- 
possible for  God  to  lie;  he  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for- 
ever: therefore  he  never  has  done,  and  never  will  do  any  thing 
"  but  what  is  eternally  just,  right  and  kind." 

5.  This  great  and  immortal  being,  from  the  pure  benevolence 
of  his  nature,  was  influenced  to  create  various  orders  of  intelligent 
and  moral  creatures,  that  they  might  behold  his  glory  and  partici- 
pate in  his  felicity. 

6.  To  this  end  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  possess  understand- 
ings liberty  and  moral  goodness  for  if  the  happiness  of  deity  re- 
sults from  his  own  nature,  it  is  evident  that  his  creatures,  to  par- 
take of  the  same  kind  of  enjoyment,  must  possess  a  degree  of  the 
same  nature,  otherwise  we  say  his  nature  is  essential,  and  at  the 
same  time  not  essential,  to  moral  happiness. 

That  God  did  in  fact  endow  his  creatures  with  free  agency,  is 
evident  from  their  fall:  for  if  they  were  not  free,  it  is  certain  that 
lliey  w  ere  made  wicked,  or  else  w  ere  driven  into  sin  by  some  other 
power;  if  they  were  made  wrong,  the  fault  was  in  their  Maker, 
not  in  themselves;  and  if  they  were  forced  into  sin  by  the  agency 
of  another,  God  only  could  be  the  author  of  it,  because  there  was 
no  other  power  in  the  universe.  Therefore  we  are  reduced  to  this 
dilemma:  either  to  believe  that  our  creator  is  essentially  wicked, 
or  that  his  creatures  were  made  free,  and  introduced  evil  by  an 
abuse  of  their  liberty.  *• 

But  why  was  this  agency  or  active  power  bestowed  upon  them  ? 
We  must  answer  that  it  was  essential  to  the  enjoyment  of  moral 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  213 

happiness,  or  that  it  was  not:  if  it  was,  this  good  and  perfect  gift 
is  resolvable  into  the  divine  beneficence;  if  it  was  not,  then  we  say- 
God  bestovved  a  useless  power  upon  his  creatures,  which  could  do 
them  no  good,  and  which  might  prove  fatal  to  their  tranquillity.  If 
we  say  he  gave  it  in  order  to  ruin  them,  we  charge  him  with  ma- 
levolence, and  if  we  say  he  gave  it  for  no  eu«l,  we  charge  him  with 
folly:  therefore  the  only  modest  and  rational  conclusion  is.  that  he 
gave  it  through  benevo-lence,  because  it  was  essential  to  their  spi- 
ritual or  moral  happiness. 

7.  To  secure  and  perpetuate  the  happiness  of  his  children,  God 
gave  them  a  law  or  moral  government,  founded  upon  the  attributes 
of  his  own  nature.  For  as  His  felicity  results  from  the  perfections 
of  his  own  nature,  the  government,  to  promote  theirs,  must  be  es- 
tablished upon  the  same  principles. 

His  giving  them  a  moral  law  is,  of  itself,  an  incontestable  proof 
of  their  free  agency.  For  had  God  intended  to  regulate  all  their 
actions  by  the  force  of  destiny,  nothing  more  would  have  been  ne- 
cessary than  to  subject  them  to  the  mechanical  laws  of  matter,  be- 
cause these  are  entirely  sufficient  to  accomplish  the  end.  Are  not 
the  general  laws  of  nature  perfectly  adequate  to  the  government 
of  those  parts  of  God's  creation  that  possess  not  the  power  of  ac- 
tion in  themselves,  and  can  only  act  as  they  are  acted  upon.''  And 
if  God  intended  that  angels  and  men  should  be  governed  by  the 
same  necessity,  would  not  a  moral  law  be  both  useless  and  ridicu- 
lous.? 

The  winds,  and  waves,  and  all  the  elements  of  uature  are  moved 
by  mechanical  influence:  if  the  actions  of  men  and  angels  are  all 
directed  in  the  same  way,  they  need  no  other  law,  and  are  as  inca- 
pable of  moral  government  as  a  stone  or  a  tree.  And  what  wisdom 
or  goodness  is  there  in  commanding  or  warning  a  creature  against 
evil  conduct,  if  he  either  has  no  power  to  do  wrong  or  must  fall  in- 
to it  of  necessity.?  The  absurdity  of  such  a  law  is  obvious  to  com- 
mon sense,  and  it  is  truly  astonishing  that  men  should  be  disposed 
to  impute  such  folly  to  the  Almighty. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  why  did  not  God  govern  all  living  creatures 
by  the  law  of  instinct,  as  the  brute  creation  are  governed.?  Could 
they  not  enjoy  sufficient  happiness  by  voluntarily  following  the  in- 
stincts of  their  nature,  without  any  responsibility,  and  therefore, 
without  any  danger  of  losing  their  felicity.? 

They  might,  it  is  true,  have  thus  enjoyed  the  happiness  of  a 
brute;  but  not  the  happiness  of  a  man^  and  much  less  that  of  an  an- 
gel. The  reason  why  brutes  are  not  morally  aeeountable  is,  that 
E  e 


214  AN  p:ssay  on  the 

they  have  no  conception  of  right,  or  of  moral  obligation:  to  bring 
men  and  angels  to  this  state,  their  knowledge  must  be  taken  from 
them,  and  they  must  be  brought  down  to  the  ignorance  of  brute 
beasts. 

I  presume  the  happiness  of  all  creatures,  that  of  a  beast  not  ex- 
cepted, depends  upon  knowledge  and  liberty.  Some,  however,  ap- 
pear to  imagine  that  beasts,  birds  and  fishes,  have  no  more  liber- 
ty or  power  than  a  mill-wlieel,  or  any  other  machine;  but  I  know 
no  argument  to  prove  ihis  conjecture,  but  what  would  equally 
prove  that  men  have  no  power.  For  men  have  similar  instincts, 
appetites  and  affections,  and  are  under  the  same  necessity  of  choos- 
ing happiness  in  preference  to  misery.  Man  chooses  happiness  in 
preference  to  misery,  of  necessity;  and  so,  I  presume,  does  every 
creature  in  existence;  but  the  means  of  enjoyment  are  innumera- 
ble, and  we  have  the  lil)erty  or  power  to  use  them  at  our  option. 
The  inferior  animals  have  a  degree  of  the  same  liberty,  confined, 
indeed,  within  narrow  limits,  from  the  imperfection  of  their  know- 
ledge, which  deprives  them  of  spiritual  and  moral  happiness;  but 
although  their  enjoyments  are  almost  entirely  confined  to  sensation, 
yet  they  have  a  free  range  through  the  earth,  and  air,  and  water; 
and  we  cannot  abridge  their  power,  or  obstruct  the  freedom  of 
their  choice,  without,  in  the  same  proportion,  diminishing  their 
happiness. 

But  waving  the  case  of  beasts  for  the  present,  it  is  sufficient  to 
our  purpose  that  all  men  are  conscious  of  a  degree  of  power  over 
their  actions,  and  that  their  highest  happiness  arises  from  know- 
ledge, and  is  inseparable  from  a  voluntary  choice.  The  exercise  of 
virtue,  or  the  enjoyment  of  moral  happiness  against  our  consent 
is  impossible:  because  it  implies  a  state  of  complete  slavery. 
If  it  be  asked,  why  was  not  the  will  inclined  to  choose  all  the  pro- 
per means  of  happiness,  as  necessarily  as  it  is  inclined  to  choose 
happiness  as  its  end,  in  preference  to  misery;  I  think  the  proper" 
answer  is,  that  it  was  impossible  for  creatures  to  possess  moral 
rectitude,  and  of  consequence,  moral  happiness,  without  the  liber, 
ty  of  option,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  without  a  degree  of  pow- 
er, which  essentially  implies  that  agency  of  will  that  can  choose 
one  thing  or  its  contrary; — that  can  perform  an  action,. or  omit 
the  performance  of  it — that  can  determine,  or  omit  the  determi- 
nation. 

If  this  be  true  (and  that  it  is  »o,  I  hope  to  prove  directly)  it 
clearly  follows  that  the  reason  why  God  did  not  hinder  the  intro- 
duction of  moral  evil,  by  making  it  impossible  for  his  creatures 


PLAN  OF  SALVATIOK  ^5 

to  sin,  was  because  it  could  not  be  done  without  making  it  impos- 
sible for  any  creature,  to  enjoy  holiness  or  moral  happiness. 
God  left  his  creatures  free,  because  God  is  love;  and  he-' 
inglove,  hedelighti  to  see  his  creatures  enjoy  that  sublime  feli- 
city, which  the  chains  of  desii'iy  would  have  deprived  them  of  for- 
ever. 

It  follows  also,  from  the  same  principle,  that,  as  the  chief  hap- 
piness of  angels  and  men  consisted  in  the  voluntary  exercise  of 
tJieir  faculties,  and  as  it  was  possible  for  those  faculties  to  be  di- 
rected wrong;  it  was  necessary  for  the  nature  and  law  of  God  to  be 
communicated  to  their  understandings,  both  to  inform  them  how 
to  act,  and  to  furnish  motives  to  good  conduct.  To  this  end  the  na- 
ture and  effects  of  good  and  evil  were  made  known  to  them,  accord- 
ing to  their  capacity  of  receiving  this  knowledge;  the  divine  be- 
neficence was  displayed  before  them,  inasmuch  as  the  law  was 
calculated  to  promote  universal  happiness,  while  justice  guarded 
their  liberty  by  all  the  warnings  and  sanctions  of  supreme  autho- 
rity. 

But  how  is  it  to  be  determined  whether  the  principle  itself  be  a 
truth,  or  a  mere  hypothesis.^  My  reasons  for  believing  it  a  truth 
are  derived  chiefly  ij-om  the  moral  attributes  of  God.  Other  argu- 
ments might  be  produced;  but  lest  they  should  be  thought  too  me- 
taphysical, I  will  content  myself  with  appealing  to  those  sacred 
perfections  which  we  all  acknowledge,  and  which  are  supported 
by  the  clear  evidence  of  reason  and  revelation.  Why  were  motives 
offered,  or  warnings  given  to  angels  or  men,  but  because  it  was 
possible  for  them  to  act  wrong.?  And  why  were  they  made  in  a 
state,  in  which  it  was  possible  for  them  to  act  wrong,  but  because 
power  or  agency  was  essential  to  their  happiness.?  That  they  were 
not  bound  to  the  right  by  necessity  is  a  matter  of  fact,  as  both  an- 
gels and  men  departed  from  their  first  estate  by  rebellion  against 
their  Creator's  laws:  and  if  we  say  they  could  have  been  as  com- 
pletely happy  in  a  state  of  absolute  iivtality,  as  in  (hat  of  moral 
liberty,  it  will  follow  that  God  had  no  regard  to  their  felicity,  in 
giving  them  the  power  of  self  determination.  And  if  he  had  no 
regard  to  this,  there  was  no  benevolence  in  the  matter,  and  conse- 
quently no  creature  ever  had  reason  to  thank  his  Maker  for  the 
gift  of  moral  liberty,  seeing  it  is  of  no  use  to  men  or  angels,  and 
has  become  the  cause  of  general  misery. 

It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  our  opponents  seem  unwilling  to 
own  that  the  creature's  free  agency  was  essential  to  God's  glory, 
and  to  the  perfect  happiness  of  his  children,  and  chose  rather  to 


216  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

insist  that  sin  was  necessary  to  accomplish  these  ends!  We  see  it 
is  a  lamentable  matter  of  fact  that  moral  and  natural  evil  have 
entered  into  the  creation:  the  question  has  long  since  been  started, 
why  did  not  God  prevent  it?  Some  have  answered  that  God  pre- 
destinated or  determined  that  sin  shr>uld  be  introduced  because  it 
was  necessary  for  the  display  of  his  glory:  and  therefore  "accord- 
ing to  the  council  of  his  own  will,  he  fore-ordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass."  We  answer  that  sin  was  never  necessary,  and  God 
never  predestinated  it;  and  the  reason  why  he  did  not  make  it  im- 
possible forhis  creatures  to  do  wrong,  was,  that  the  liberty  of  op- 
lion  was  essential  to  the  happiness  and  perfection  of  their  nature. 
Had  he  deprived  them  of  this,  he  would  thereby  have  suspended 
the  operations  of  his  goodness,  and  prevented  all  that  sublime 
and  angelic  felicity,  which  results  from  a  voluntary  obedience  to 
his  commandments.  This  is  the  only  conclusion  that  is  worthy  of 
God, or  that  can  ever  be  made  to  accord  with  those  perfeetione 
which  are  every  where  ascribed  to  him  by  the  incontestable  voice 
of  revelation.  Need  we  now  produce  particular  passages  to  prove 
that  God  is  holy,  wise  and  good.^  Every  one  knows  the  bible  must 
stand  or  fall  with  these  essential  truths;  but  if  God  either  forced 
his  creatures  into  sin,  or  gave  them  liberty  for  no  end  but  to  en- 
snare them,  what  holiness  or  justice,  or  hatred  of  sin,  is  herein 
manifested?  If  he  gave  them  this  power  when  it  was  not  at  all  ne- 
cessary to  their  happiness,  it  is  ridiculous  to  say  it  resulted  from 
kindness;  it  is  equally  so,  to  say  it  resulted  from  wisdom,  if  it  was 
bestowed  on  them  for  nothing;  or  from  trnth  and  sincerity,  if  he 
cautioned  and  warned  them  against  evil,  and  at  the  same  time 
secretly  contrived  or  predestinated  their  apostacy.  We  must  there- 
fore give  up  the  divine  attributes,  and  contradict  the  leading 
principles  of  revelation,  or  admit  that  God  bestowed  the  gift  of 
moral  freedom,  from  the  principle  of  loving  kindness,  to  promote 
that  progressive  improvement  and  felicity,  which  can  never  re- 
sult from  either  a  mechanical  or  a  brutal  nature. 

8.  If  then  the  happiness  of  God's  creatures  resultetl  from  a  vo- 
luntary exercise  of  their  free  powers,  according  to  the  principles 
of  his  divine  government;  and  if  they  were  influenced  to  good  con- 
duct by  moral  motives  exhibited  in  that  government;  it  plainly 
follows  that  the  law  must  be  maintained  and  displayed  in  all  its 
purity,  and  in  all  its  force,  that  happiness  may  be  perfect  and  uni- 
versal. Consequently  any  violation  of  il,  or  any  departure  from 
the  just  principle  on  which  it  is  founded,  is  a  direct  attack  upon 
the  general  welfare,  and  an  audacious  insnlt  te  its  eternal  Author^ 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION  217 

Hence  the  odious  nature  and  deep  criminality  of  moral  evil.  It  is  a. 
yery  dreadful  evil,  not  merely  because  it  has  been  forbidden,  as  if 
it  was  no  evil  till  the  prohibition  made  it  so,  but  because  it  natu- 
rally tends  to  misery,  and  is  a  violation  of  the  essential  rights  of 
God,  of  angels,  and  of  men. 

9.  It  is  a  mournful  truth,  but  too  notorious  to  be  denied,  that  the 
inhabitants  of  our  world  are  involved  in  the  horrors  of  depravity 
and  guilt.  We  drink  in  iniquity  like  water,  and  seem  bent  upon 
our  own  destruction.  If  sin  is  such  a  crying  evil,  our  danger 
must  be  great;  and  had  not  divine  goodness  interposed  in  our  fa- 
vour, we  could  have  no  hopes  of  ever  ascending  to  the  regions  of 
the  blessed. 

The  reason  why  God  executes  vengeance  upon  sinners,  is  because 
it  is  necessary.  It  is  just  for  them  to  be  punished,  because  they  de- 
serve it;  but  justice  is  executed  upon  them,  not  merely  because 
they  deserve  it,  but  because  it  is  needful  for  the  security  of  those 
creatures  whom  the  divine  attributes  are  engaged  to  defend.  If 
we  deny  this,  we  say  the  execution  of  justice  is  an  unnecessary 
thing,  and  punishments  are  inflicted  for  no  other  end,  but  because 
it  is  the  good  pleasure  of  God  to  inflict  them;  which  supposes  him 
to  be  actuated  by  the  spirit  oi revenge. 

If  rebels  pass  with  impunity,  the  whole  creation  are  tempted  at 
once  to  disbelieve  the  goodness,  justice  and  holiness  of  their  crea- 
tor, and  moral  governor;  and  nothing  can  give  them  that  evidence 
of  these  attributes  which  they  ought  to  have,  but  a  full  manifesta- 
tion of  God's  abhorrence  of  moral  evil.  This  evidence  they  had 
before,  by  the  divine  attributes  maintaining  their  happiness,  and 
warning  them  against  evil;  but  now  that  the  supreme  authority  is 
insulted,  some  new  proof  must  be  given,  which  before  was  not  ne- 
cessary; because  if  the  sinners  now  pass  with  impunity,  and  no- 
thing be  done  to  evince  the  creator's  displeasure  of  their  crimes, 
the  former  evidence  is  contradicted,  and  the  creatures  of  God  are 
thereby  exposed  to  the  most  fatal  delusions  and  temptations;  such 
as  are  calculated  to  destroy  the  harmony  of  heaven,  and  to  pro- 
duce universal  misery.  To  prevent  this,  the  pare  nature  of  God, 
and  the  ruinous  eftects  of  sin,  must  be  set  in  a  proper  light,  for  the 
sake  of  those  creatures  whose  nature  is  fitted  to  the  influence  of 
moral  motives.  For  these  righteous  purposes,  and  not  for  the 
gratification  of  revenge,  are  punishments  inflicted  under  any  just 
government  in  the  world:  and  surely  the  administration  of  Al- 
mighty God  is  more  perfect  than  that  of  men,  and  is  infinitely  far- 
ther  removed  from  any  private  passion  or  animosity. 


^8  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

10.  It  plainly  follows  from  M'hsd  has  been  said,  that  if  sinners 
were  not  pardoned  without  a  redeemer,  it  was  not  because  there 
ivfts  no  disposition  in  God  to  forgive  them,  but  because  he  had  too 
Ipiuch  regard  for  the  general  good  to  let  particular  offenders  pass 
unpunished;  unless  the  fatal  influence  of  their  sin  could  be  by  some 
other  means  prevented.  If  he  had  no  disposition  to  jiardon  them, 
there  was  no  mercy  in  his  nature,  and  if  he  had,  nothing  hindered 
him  from  doing  it,  but  his  regard  for  good  government  and  the  gen- 
eral safety:  consequently  the  accomplishment  of  these  ends  in  re- 
demption, vvas  all  that  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God  ever  de- 
manded, as  an  atonement,  propitiation,  or  satisfaction  for  sin. 


SECTION  \T. 

The  same  subject. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  formidable  objection  which 
deists,  and  some  predestinarian  divines  will  be  apt  to  allege 
against  us. 

Be  pleased  to  inform  us,  will  they  say,  how  God's  hatred  of  sin 
could  be  manifested  by  inflicting  punishments  upon   the  innocent. 

Before  we  give  a  direct  answer  to  this  objection,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  show  how  easily  it  may  be  retorted. 

,  First:  Let  it  be  observed,  that  every  thing  in  nature  is  surround- 
ed with  difficulties,  when  we  attempt  to  discover  why  it  is  so,  or 
how  certain  effects  are  produced.  The  fact  may  be  plain,  and  may 
be  supported  by  evidence  which  cannot  be  resisted;  and  yet  the 
maimer  of  it  may  remain  inscrutable,  or  at  least  very  inadequate- 
ly comprehended  by  the  human  mind. 

Consider  the  Avorks  of  nature,  and  tell  us  how  it  is  (hat  he 
stretcheth  the  north  over  the  empty  place,  and  hangeth  the  earth 
upon  nothing?  Consider  the  laws  of  gravitation,  magnetism,  vege- 
tation and  dissolution,  how  are  yonder  stars  and  suns  suspended  in 
the  heavens,  and  in  what  manner  have  the  planets  been  kept  in 
their  orbits  for  thousands  of  years.-^  How  is  animal  life  supported 
by  various  kinds  of  material  substances,  taken  into  the  stomach, 
and  why  must  there  be  a  perpetual  motion  of  the  heart,  and  circu- 
lation of  the  blood,  to  keep  us  from  dropping  into  the  dust?  How  is 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  219 

if,  that  we  see  by  means  of  one  member  of  this  body,  hear  by  means 
of  another,  and  taste  and  smell  by  means  of  organs  separate  from 
both  the  others?  Why  is  it  that  I  cannot  see  \vith  my  ears,  and 
why  is  my  whole  body  susceptible  of  the  sense  of  touch,  while  the 
other  sensations  are  confined  to  different  small  parts  of  it?  Can 
any  one  inform  me  why  I  can  move  my  arm,  and  alter  its  motion 
as  I  please,  while  I  have  no  power  over  my  blood  or  heart  which 
continually  move  independent  of  my  will?  or  how  the  members  of 
my  body,  and  other  parts  of  matter,  are  put  in  motion  at  the  in- 
conceivable influence  or  command  of  thought,  which  is  immateri- 
al? This  is  a  mystery  so  profound,  that  it  is  acknowledged  to  sur- 
pass all  human  conceptions,  even  by  Mr.  Hume,  whose  testimony 
or  opinion  in  this  case,  is  of  some  importauce,  as  it  shows  that 
the  greatest  philosophical  sceptics  are  forced  to  admit  the  myste- 
ries of  nature  while  they  inconsistently  reject  those  of  revela- 
tion. 

-  "]s  there  any  principle  in  all  nature,"  says  Mr.  Hume,  "more 
mysterious  than  the  union  of  soul  with  body;  by  which  a  supposed 
spiritual  substance  acquires  such  an  influence  over  a  material  one 
that  the  most  refined  thought  is  able  to  actuate  the  grossest  mat- 
ter? Were  we  empowered,  by  a  secret  wish,  to  remove  mountains, 
or  controul  the  planets  in  their  orbit;  this  extensive  authority 
would  not  be  more  extraordinary,  nor  more  beyond  our  compre- 
hension."* 

If  the  creation  be  thus  full  of  mysteries,  and  if  the  connexion 
between  cause  and  effect,  or  the  manner  of  operation  by  which  ef- 
fects are  produced,  be  inconceivable  while  the  facts  are  obvious, 
and  supported  by  evidence  most  conclusive  and  irresistible;  why 
should  it  be  thought  wonderful  that  we  cannot  entirely  compre- 
hend the  influence  of  redemption,  or  tell  how  the  death  of  Christ 
produced  those  great  effects  which  are  ascribed  to  his  sufferings 
in  the  christian  revelation? 

Secondly:  as  infidels  are  inconsistent  in  complaining  of  gospel 
mysteries  while  they  themselves  hold  others  that  are  parallel,  so 
are  our  christian  objectors  in  charging  our  system  with  being  in- 
definite, while  the  complaint  is  so  applicable  to  their  own,  and 
can  be  so  successfully  retorted. 

Let  us  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  how  they  will  give  us  a  clear 
and  definite  account  of  the  connexion  between  our  Saviour's  suf- 
ferings and  the  "resurrection  of  the  dead."  He  said,  "because  I 


*  Hume's  Essays,  vol.  2,  page  104, 105. 


250  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

live  ye  sLall  live  also:  he  is  called  the  first  fruits  of  them  that 
slept:  the  apostles  preached  tlnough  Jesus  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead:  and  St.  Paul  says,  for  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.'' — John.xiv.  19.  i  Cor. 
^y.  20,  2i.  Jids,  iv.  2. 

Now  if  they  can  understand  the  clear  connexion  between  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  the  resurrection  of  all  mankind  from  the 
grave,  we  will  wait  patiently  to  have  the  matter  explained;  for 
to  Hs  it  appears  very  difficult  and  hard  to  be  understood.  If  men 
will  be  raised  from  the  dead  in  consequence  of  Christ's  having  died 
for  them  and  rose  again,  according  to  the  scriptures;  and  if,  as  our 
opponents  tell  us,  Christ  did  not  die  for  reprobates;  it  plainly  fol- 
lows that  reprobates  will  never  rise  from  the  dead.  But  our  Sa- 
viour says,  "all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and 
shall  come  forth;  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of 
life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  nnio  the  resurrection  of  dam- 
nation." John  V.  28,  29.  f 

Let  us  inquire  again  how  their  system  clears  up  the  mystery  of 
atonement,  and  how  they  explain  the  suffierings  of  Christ,  as  a 
cause  of  the  sinner's  justification.  The  scriptures  inform  us,  that 
he  died  for  our  sins,  and  arose  again  for  our  justification.  That  he 
gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  all,  and  made  his  soul  an  oflFering  for 
sin.  That  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised  for 
our  iniquities:  that  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him, 
and  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 

In  this  we  are  all  agreed:  but  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  very 
men  who  caution  us  against  explaining  away  the  divine  mysteries, 
adhere  to  an  hypothesis,  unknown  in  the  gospel,  that  was  invented 
to  account  for  the  death  of  Christ,  and  to  explain  how  the  justifi- 
cation of  sinners  is  accomplished  by  his  atonement.  We  will  sup- 
pose an  objector  to  state  his  argument  in  these  terms: 

'You  urge  with  great  earnestness  and  assurance,  that  the  end  of 
Christ's  death  was  to  vindicate  the  divine  purity  in  the  pardon  of 
sinners,  by  declaring  his  righteousness,  or  evincing  his  hatred 
against  sin;  but  suppose  all  this  be  granted,  your  conclusion  is  not 
yet  secure:  for  if  Christ  was  innocent^  as  you  contend,  who  is  able 
to  conceive  how  God's  hatred  of  sin  was  manifested,  by  inflicting 
punishments  upon  the  innocent?  But  admit  our  doctrine,  that  he 
becameguilty  and  suffered  the  penalty  as  such,  and  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  his  hatred  of  sin  is  manifested,  because  he  punished  the  sins 
of  all  his  people  in  their  surety,who  voluntarily  became  guilty  in 
their  place.' 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  521 

In  answer  to  this,  1  propose  to  prove  these  three  things:  First: 
that  though  it  were  true  that  no  man  could  have  any  conception 
of  the  manner  how  Christ's  death  made  our  salvation  accord  with 
the  glory  of  God,  yet  we  should  be  bound  in  reason  to  believe  the 
fact,  notwithstanding  our  incapacity  to  comprehend  the  manner 
of  it. 

Secondly:  that  the  Antinomian  hypothesis,  far  from  clearing  this 
mystery,  makes  it  more  obscure,  and  even  involves  it  in  contradic- 
tions. 

Thirdly:  that  our  view  of  the  matter,  though  it  does  not  explain 
the  mystery  of  redemption  fully,  or  enable  the  human  mind  to 
have  an  adequate  conception  of  it,  yet  it  makes  the  subject  of 
atonement  more  intelligible  than  the  other  system,  because  mere 
consistent  with  itself,  and  with  the  nature  of  God. 

First:  Suppose  we  had  no  conception  how  the  death  of  Christ 
declared  God's  righteousness,  or  manifested  his  hatred  of  sin, 
would  it  be  a  fair  conclusion,  to  infer  that  we  ought  to  disbelieve 
the  doctrine  of  redemption,  until  the  manner  of  it,  or  the  connex- 
ion between  cause  and  eftect,  should  be  made  clear?  I  conclude  it 
would  not,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  It  is  possible  for  us  to  have  full  evidence  of  a  fact,  or  of  cer- 
tain effects  produced  by  some  cause,  witheut  knowing  either  the 
cause  or  the  manner  of  its  operation.  Instance  the  ebbing  and 
flowing  of  the  tide:  whether  it  be  produced  by  the  immediate  volition 
of  some  active  agent,  or  by  the  mechanical  influence  of  some  other 
part  of  the  material  creation,  I  presume  remains  a  secret  to  this 
day:  at  least  it  remains  so  to  thousands  who  are  capable  of  know- 
ing the  fact,  by  the  most  irresistible  evidence. 

2.  We  may  know  both  the  cause  and  the  effect,  and  yet  have 
no  conception  of  the  connexion  between  them:  witness  the  power 
of  the  mind  over  the  menibers  bf  the  body,  which  Mr.  Hume  ac- 
knowledged to  be  ai  inconceivable  a  mystery,  as  our  actions  would 
be,  "were  we  empowered  by  a  secret  wish,  to  remove  mountains, 
•rcontroul  the  planets  in  their  orbit."  While  I  move  my  hand  over 
this  paper,  I  am  certain  of  the  effect,  that  my  hand  does  move, 
and  equally  certain  that  I  am  the  cause  of  it,  because  I  am  con- 
scious that  it  moves  by  the  volition  of  my  will;  yet  the  connexion 
between  my  volition  and  the  motion  of  this  piece  of  matter,  or  the 
manner  how  the  effect  is  produced,  remains  a  secret,  of  which  I 
have  no  conception. 

3.  We  may  know  the  cause,  the  effect  and  the  means  made  use 
•f,  and  yet  have  no  conception  of  the  manner  how  the  means  ope^ 

Ff 


332  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

rate,  or  why  snch  means  are  necessary  to  produce  the  effect.  Wit- 
ness the  thousands  who  have  been  restored  to  health,  by  the  in- 
fluence of  various  kinds  of  medicine,  who  knew  the  agent,  the 
means  used,  and  the  effect  produced,  and  yet  had  no  conception  of 
the  secret  operations  by  which  their  health  was  restored,  and  were 
unable  to  tell  why  such  particular  kinds  of  matter  were  necessary 
to  produce  the  effect,  rather  than  others,  or  how  the  healing  influ- 
ence operated,  to  remove  their  disorders. 

The  creation  of  the  world,  is  a  mystery  of  this  latter  kind.  We 
have  full  evidence  of  an  Almighty  being,  as  the  cause:  by  the  evi- 
dence of  our  senses  Me  ascertain  the  existence  of  a  material  uni- 
verse as  the  effect  pf  his  power:  and  by  revelation  we  are  assured 
the  world  was  created  by  means  of  his  word. 

"God  said  let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light." 

"God  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  son,  whom 
he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds.  And  upholdeth  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power."  Heb. 
i.  23. 

"In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word  was  with  God, 
and  the  word  was  God.  All  things  were  made  by  him;  and  with- 
out him  was  not  any  thing  made,  that  was  made."  John  i.  13. 

Now  will  any  man  imagine  that  he  can  comprehend  how  God 
by  his  word  produced  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
the  dry  land?  And  will  any  one  do  violence  to  his  reason,  and  re- 
ject all  the  evidence  we  have  for  the  cause  and  the  effect,  because 
the  manner  of  his  operation  is  incomprehensible  by  us?  Wifl  he 
deny  the  existence  of  God  or  the  existence  of  the  world,  because 
he  cannot  understand  how  the  world  was  madc^"  As  little  reason 
has  any  one  to  disbelieve  oiir  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ  on  ac- 
count of  his  incapacity  to  conceive  how  this  salvation  is  accom- 
plished, or  why  such  particular  means  are  to  be  used. 

The  cause  or  agent  in  this  work  was  the  same  that  created  the 
world;  the  means  made  use  of  were  his  assuming  our  nature,  and 
submitting  to  suffer  and  die,  even  the  death  of  the  cross:  the  effect 
produced  was,  a  full  display  of  the  glory  of  God,  in  the  grant  of 
pardon  to  penitent  sinnei-s. 

For  all  this  we  have  abundant  evidence;  and  if  we  had  no  more 
conception  how  his  death  exhibited  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  purity 
of  the  divine  nature,  than  how  light  came  into  being,  when  God 
said  let  there  be  light,  our  ignorance  would  afford  no  more  evi- 
dence against  the  truth  of  redemption,  than  against  the  creation; 
and  therefore  we  are  bound  to  reject  this  infidel  pka,  or  leap  at 
ouce  into  atheism,  seeing  the  objection  bears  equally  against  the 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  323 

creation  of  the  world,  as  against  its  redemption  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

Secondly;  The  Antinomian  hypothesis,  far  from  clearing  this 
mystery,  involves  tlie  subject  in  darkness  and  contradiction. 

It  were  easy  to  show,  that  the  practice  of  inventing  hypotheses 
to  account  for  the  works  of  God,  has  had  the  same  tendency  in  all 
fLges:  it  has  never  improved  human  knowledge,  but  on  the  contra- 
ry, has  bewildered  the  understanding,  and  led  to  conclusions  the 
most  absurd,  and  inconsistent  that  can  be  imagined. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  mention  one  or  two  cases,  and  show 
their  similarity  to  the  present  theory  of  our  objectors. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  conceive  hoiv  God  created  the  world  out 
of  nothing;  and  hence  the  fact  has  been  denied,  and  theories  have 
been  invented  to  account  for  its  existence.  It  has  been  arbitrari- 
ly taken  for  granted,  that  small  particles  of  matter,  called  atoms^ 
have  existed  eternally;  that  they  arranged  themselves  together  by 
chance,  and  that  it  is  only  by  chance  that  this  great  universe  con- 
tinues in  being. 

The  answer  to  this  is  the  same  that  is  to  be  given  to  other  hy- 
potheses: First,  There  is  no  manner  of  evidence  for  the  principle 
which  is  taken  for  granted: 

Secondly:  The  principle,  if  true,  would  not  assist  our  concept 
tions,  but  would  leave  the  subject  as  mysterious  as  it  was  before. 
Thirdly:  It  contradicts  the  immediate  dictates  of  our  intelli- 
gence, "  that  nothing  can  begin  to  exist,  or  be  put  into  motion, 
without  a  cause  adequate  to  produce  the  eftect,  and  that  from  the 
signs  of  power  and  wisdom  in  the  eftect,  we  may  certainly  know 
that  those  attributes  exist  in  the  cause  which  produced  it." 

Again:  The  fact  is  clear,  that  we  perceive  external  objects  by 
means  of  our  senses;  but  the  manner  of  it  is  inconceivable:  hence 
the  hypothesis  has  been  invented,  that  ideas  come  from  external  ob- 
jects, through  the  organs  of  sensation,  which  ideas  the  mind  imme- 
diately perceives  when  seated  in  the  brain.  This  has  been  thought 
to  account  for  the  fact,  and  to  show  how  we  perceive  the  various 
objects  around  us. 

We  are  told  that  two  grand  axioms  in  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  Philo- 
sophy were  these:  1.  That  in  accounting  for  any  phenomenon  or 
event  in  nature,  "  the  cause  we  assign  must  be  shown  to  exist :" 
and  secondly,  "  it  must  be  adequate  to  produce  the  effect." 

Now  I  think  Dr.  Reid  has  made  it  very  clear,  1.  Thatnoevi 
dence  has  been  produced,  that  there  are  ideas  in  the  brain  : 

Secondly:  That  such  ideas,  suppose  their  existence  to  be  ad 


334  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

mitted,  do  not  account  for  our  perception  of  external  objects,  or 
enable  us  to  understand  the  manner  of  it  any  better  than  we  do 
without  them:  and  thirdly:  That  the  theory  contradicts  com- 
mon sense,  and  led  bishop  Berkley  and  Mr.  Hume  by  regular  and 
consequential  reasoning,  to  disprove  and  disbelieve  the  existence 
of  a  material  world.* 

The  atonement  made  by  our  Redeemer,  like  all  the  other  workg 
of  God,  has  something  in  it,  surpassing  our  limited  conceptions. 

The  fact  is  clearly  revealed,  "  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the 
world  to  save  sinners:"  we  are  fully  informed  who  the  Author  of 
our  salvation  is,  and  also  concerning  the  means  he  made  use  of, 
and  the  ultimate  end  of  his  sufferings;  but  how  the  means  he  uses 
produce  the  effect,  or  accomplish  the  end  intended,  is  not  so  easi- 
ly understood.  Here  we  must  be  content  with  a  partial  concep- 
tion, aided  by  metaphors  and  similitudes,  without  giving  them  a 
literal  application;  we  must  be  content  in  a  state  of  ignorance, 
where  God  has  not  given  us  the  means  of  knowledge, lest  Me  run 
into  dangerous  errors,  which  are  far  worse  than  ignorance. 

But  alas!  the  professors  of  Christianity  have  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  the  scholastic  philosophers,  and  the  effect  has  been  the 
same.  They  have  formed  an  hypothesis,  to  explain  how  the  death 
of  Christ  made  atonement  for  the  sin  of  man,  which  instead  of  mak- 
ing the  matter  more  clear,  has  involved  it  in  tenfold  obscurity, 
and  led  thousands  to  attribute  the  principles  of  moral  evil  to  the 
Almighty. 

The  hypothesis  is.  That  Christ  by  imputation,  became  guiltyj 
and  that  God  punished  him  as  a  guilty  being,  who,  having  assum- 
ed the  obligation  of  sinners,  stood  obnoxious  to  the  whole  penalty 
of  justice  in  their  place. 

Though  this  hypothesis,  like  most  otJiers,at  first  vieM',  has  some 
appearance  of  plausibility,  yet  I  think  it  is  not  difHeult  to  make  ap- 
pear, (1.)  that  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  principle  is  true:  (2.) 
if  it  were  proved,  it  would  still  leave  the  subject  of  atonement  as 
inconceivable  as  it  was  before:  and  (3.)  that  it  is  opposed  to  the 
clearest  evidence,  and  involves  the  doctrine  of  redemption  in  obvi- 
ous and  self-evident  contradictions. 

1.  What  evidence  have  we  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  became 
guilty,  and  stood  obnoxious,  in  law  and  justice,  to  penal  sufferings.^' 

*  See  his  Essays  on  the  Intellectual  Powers,  Essay  II.  American 
edition,  vol.  i.  chap.  xiv.  pj^ge  302, 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  225 

The  scriptures  assure  us  "that  he  was  without  sin:  that  he  was 
jnanifested  to  take  away  our  sins,  and  in  him  is  no  sin:  and  that 
he  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth."  Heb.  iv. 
15.  1  John,  iii.  5.  1  Peter,  ii.  22. 

The  prophet  represents  him  as  dying  innocent,  as  a  lamb  that 
is  led  to  the  slaughter.  He  himself  looked  round  upon  the  Jews, 
and  from  the  consciousness  of  heavenly  integrity  said,  «  which  of 
you  convinceth  me  of  sin."  Pilate's  wife,  being  warned  in  a 
dream,  sent  unto  him,  saying,  ''have  thou  nothing  to  do  with  that 
just  man."  And  Pilate  washed  his  hands,  saying,  "I  am  innocent 
of  the  blood  of  this  just  person,  see  ye  to  it."     Matt,  xxvii.  19,  2^ 

Accordingly  the  apostles  upbraided  the  Jews  with  their  wick- 
edness, iu  crucifying  the  innocent  redeemer,  and  said,  "ye  denied 
the  holy  One  and  the  Just,  and  desired  a  murderer  to  be  granted 
unto  you;  and  killed  the  Prince  of  life,  whom  God  raised  from 
the  dead;  whereof  we  are  witnesses."     Acts.  iii.  14,  13. 

Itis  acknowledged  on  all  sides,  that  our  Saviour  was  innocent  be- 
fore he  came  to  redeem  fallen  men. 

Now  if  he  voluntarily  departed  from  a  state  of  innocence  to  a 
state  of  guilt,  he  brought  this  guilt  upon  himself  by  an  act  M'hich 
depended  entirely  upon  his  own  will:  and  yet  we  believe  the  thing 
be  did  was  perfectly  right  and  good:  then  it  is  right  and  good  for  an  in- 
nocent person  voluntarily  to  do  that  which  brings  him  into  a  state 
of  guilt. 

If  it  be  said,  Christ  was  not  really  guilty,  but  tie  guilt  of  others 
was  imputed  to  him,  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  ask  a  few  plaia 
questions. 

Did  Christ  impute  the  guilt  of  others  to  himself?  If  he  did,  are 
we  to  understand  by  it,  that  he  chose  to  ha^  e  their  guilt  transfer- 
red to  himself.''  If  so,  did  his  choosing  it  really  make  him  guilty 
or  not.^  If  it  did  ^not,  he  really  remained  innocent,  and  they  re- 
mained guilty  as  before;  if  it  did,  I  M'ould  ask  again,  whether 
his  thus  becoming  guilty  of  their  crimes  rendered  them  innocent 
or  not.^  If  they  were  rendered  innocent  they  were  from  that  mo- 
ment raised  above  the  want  of  pardon  as  effectually  as  innocent 
Adam  was  before  the  fall:  but  if  the  Saviour  became  guilty,  and 
yet  they  remain  equally  so  as  before,  then  we  say  justice  was  sa- 
tisfied by  having  additional  guilt  produced:  inasmuch  as  Christ 
brought  new  guilt  into  the  creation,  without  diminishing  the  old. 
There  is  no  way  to  avoid  this  conclusion  but  by  saying  Christ  took 
fart  of  their  guilt,  and  left  the  remainder  on  themselves:  and  if  so, 
they  still  need  pardon  for  what  remains^  because  Christ  only  ap- 


226  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

peased  the  divine  vengeance,  for  the  proportion  of  guilt  which  he 
received.  Again: 

If  Christ  did  not  choose  to  become  really  guilty,  in  what  sense 
did  he  impute  guilt  to  himself?  If  he  believed  he  was  guilty,  when 
he  was  not,  he  deceived  himself,  and  if  he  professed  to  be  so, 
when  he  was  not,  he  deceived  others:  if  then  he  was  not  really 
guilty,  did  not  believe  himself  guilty,  nor  profess  to  be  so,  in 
what  way  can  it  be  imagined  that  he  imputed  sin  to  himself? 

And  if  the  Father  accounted  him  guilty,  when  he  was  innocent, 
was  not  this  imputation  contrary  to  truth?  Or  does  a  false  charge 
presented  against  an  innocent  person  really  make  him  guilty? 

If  it  be  said,  it  is  blasphemous  to  ask  these  questions,  or  to  an-^ 
swer  them;  and  that  it  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  Christ  con- 
sented to  become  guilty,  because  it  was  necessary  to  the  redemp- 
tion of  his  people;  I  must  reply,  that  this  is  nothing  more  than  tak- 
ing the  hypothesis  for  granted.  What  proof  is  there  that  Christ 
ever  consented  to  become  guilty,  or  that  his  becoming  so  was  ne- 
cessary to  our  redemption? 

We  have  sufficient  evidence,  indeed,  that  he  consented  to  take 
upon  himself  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  to  die,  the  just  for  the  un- 
just: we  have  sufficient  evidence  likewise  that  all  this  was  was  neces- 
sary to  our  redemption:  but  this  is  so  far  from  supposing  him  guil- 
ty, that  it  plainly  supposes  the  contrary,  unless  we  choose  to  con- 
found the  distinction  between  the  just  and  the  unjust. 

2.  The  theory  of  our  opponents,  if  admitted,  would  not  ac- 
count for  the  necessity  of  atonement,  or  explain  the  manner  of  it, 
any  better  than  we  understand  it  without  such  assistance. 

They  say  it  is  hard  to  conceive  how  the  sufterings  of  an  innocent 
person  can  prove  God's  opposition  to  sin.  We  reply,  it  is  equally 
hard  to  conceive  how  his  hatred  against  sin  is  manifested  by  impu- 
ting guilt  to  an  innocent  person.  The  latter  case  affords  no  aid  to 
our  conceptions;  for  surely  if  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  why  the  in- 
nocenf  should  suffer,  it  does  not  mend  the  matter  to  charge  the  in- 
nocent with  being  guilty  when  he  is  not  so,  and  thus  add  a  false 
accusation  to  his  other  sufferings. 

3.  The  hypothesis,  far  from  clearing  the  mystery,  involves  the 
subject  in  darkness  and  contradiction. 

Though  we  are  unable  to  conceive  adequately  of  the  atonement^ 
in  our  present  state  of  being,  yet  we  clearly  conceive  that  it  ac- 
cords perfectly  with  every  righteous  principle  for  the  innocent 
to  suffer,  when  the  pain  is  voluntarily  endured  from  the  dictate  of 
benevolence.    And  as  we  know  the  greatest  works  of  benevolence 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  22^ 

performed  in  this  world,  cost  the  agent  very  considerable  suffer- 
ings, of  one  kind  or  another,  why  should  it  be  thought  incredible 
that  the  redemption  of  sinners,  an  act  of  benevolence  that  trans- 
ported the  heavenly  hosts,  should  cost  its  gracious  Author  an  un- 
common degree  of  misery? 

But  the  sentiment  we  oppose  can  never  be  reconciled  with  right- 
eousness; for  though  it  is  right  for  an  innocent  being  to  suiter 
through  voluntary  kindness,  yet  to  charge  an  innocent  person  with 
guilt,  and  then  to  punish  him  as  a  criminal,  is  a  plain  violation 
of  truth  and  justice.  The  imputation  is  false,  and  the  innocent 
person  cannot  be  punished  as  a  criminal  under  sentence  from  such 
a  charge,  without  unjustly  violating  his  right  both  to  the  charac- 
ter and  consequences  of  innocence.  Thus  the  contradiction  follows, 
that  justice  is  satisfied  by  the  violation  of  justice. 

Thirdly;  our  view,  though  it  does  not  furnish  us  with  a  full  and 
adequate  conception  of  atonement,  is  nevertheless  more  definite 
and  intelligible  than  the  opposite. 

1.  Our  Saviour,  by  assuming  human  nature,  (sin  excepted)  and 
submitting  to  suffer  the  agonies  of  the  cross  in  that  nature,  on  ac- 
count of  sin,  and  as  an  expedient  through  which  sinners  were  to  ap- 
ply for  mercy,  plainly  proved,  that  though  God  isagracious  Being, 
and  we  are  his  offspring,  yet  he  is  so  far  from  being  moved  by  a 
partial  fondness  to  tolerate  our  iniquities,  that  if  we  or  any  other 
creatures  were  as  near  to  him,  as  the  humanity  was  united  to  God 
in  Jesus  Christ,  he  would  not  depart  from  the  principles  of  his  go- 
vernment to  deliver  us  from  punishment.  This  was  plainly  signi- 
fied by  our  Saviour's  death,  which  was  therefore  endured  as  a 
proof  of  the  purity  of  the  divine  nature.  God  hereby  proved  before 
all  worlds  that  though  he  was  disposed  to  receive  human  sinners 
to  favour  after  their  rebellion,  yet  this  was  so  far  from  arising 
from  a  connivance  at  iniquity,  or  from  a  fondness  for  them  to  the 
neglect  of  other  creatures,  that  if  human  nature  was  so  near  to  him 
as  to  be,  as  it  were,  a  part  of  himself,  it  slwuld  not  be  delivered 
from  punishment  through  partiality,  or  through  a  neglect  of  just 
and  impartial  government. 

2.  He  displayed  the  destructive  nature  and  demerit  of  sin, 
by  exhibiting  the  dreadful  effects  of  it  in  his  own  body  on  tha 
cross.  We  may  safely  admit  that  he  voluntarily  endured  the  penal 
consequences  of  sin  in  a  considerable  degree,  to  show  what  awful 
miseries  are  incurred  by  disobedience;  but  never  will  we  admit,  I 
hope,  that  he  consented  to  deserve  this  miiery,  or  to  take  any  part 
of  our  guilt  upon  himself. 


3SW  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

His  groans,  and  "strong  cries  and  tears"  on  Calvary,  spoke  a 
language  which  may  have  been  understood  far  better  by  angels 
than  by  men;  and  demonstrated  that  God  is  a  Being  ot'such  unsul- 
lied holiness,  and  of  such  abhorrence  to  moral  evil,  that  the  dire- 
ful consequences  of  it  shall  beheld  up  by  his  beloved  Son,  between 
heaven  and  earth,  as  the  only  medium  through  which  forgiveness 
shall  be  granted. 

Let  all  creatures  in  the  universe  look  to  the  cross  of  Jesus,  and 
learn  that  the  pure  laws  of  Almighty  God  are  not  to  be  broken 
with  impunity:  no  mercy  can  be  shown,  but  through  the  medium  of 
"God  manifested  in  the  flesh,  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself,"  and  what  creature  will  presume  that  God  will  sacrifice 
himself  at  every  turn,  or  whenever  any  part  of  his  subjects  shall 
choose  to  enter  upon  a  course  of  rebellion?  This  glorious  expedi- 
ent to  save  sinners,  shows  such  love  and  condescension  on  the  one 
hand,  and  such  a  jealousy  for  the  security  of  good  government  on 
the  other,  that  it  appears  calculated  to  astonish  heaven,  and  cause 
•very  thinking  man  upon  earth  to  rejoice  with  trembling.  We  have 
cause  to  rejoice  that  our  Redeemer  has  opened  the  way  to  heaven 
before  us  by  his  own  blood;  and  to  tremble,  lest  we  be  found 
among  the  number  who  neglect  so  great  salvation,  and  for  whom 
"there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,  but  a  certain  fearlul 
looking  for  of  judgment,  and  fiery  indignation  which  shall  devour 
the  adversaries." 

3.  Our  gracious  Creator,by  appointing  the  death  of  Christ  as 
the  only  medium  of  access;  by  demanding  suitable  humility  and 
submission  on  the  part  of  the  sinner;  and  by  refusing  to  grant 
pardon  to  those  under  the  gospel  who  refuse  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  the  foundation  of  their  hopes,  and  to 
implore  mercy  through  his  merit  and  intercession;  has  displayed 
his  divine  authority  and  unchangeable  purpose  to  hold  the 
principles  of  moral  government,  and  make  every  rational  crea- 
ture submit  to  them,  or  feel  the  consequences  of  disobedience. 

Thus  he  gives  incontestable  evidence  of  his  regard  for  right- 
eousness; whereas,  had  Christ  by  his  death  discharged  all  clainuof 
justice  against  the  sinner;  God  would  have  proved  in  the  face  of 
heaven  that  redemption  was  designed  to  unnerve  the  principles 
of  his  govei'nment,  and  to  raise  ransomed  sinners  above  all  obliga- 
tions of  law,  during  the  whole  of  their  probation.  By  establish- 
ing a  plan  of  redemption,  which  should  give  them  a  legal  indul- 
gence in  their  iniquities,  he  would  demonstrate  his  want  of  holi- 
ness, i^udif  he  were  to  demand  and  execute  the  penalty  twice  over 


PL\N  OF  SALVATION.  359 

first  on  their  surety,  and  then  on   themselves,  he  would  thereby 
prove  his  deficiency  in  equity  and  moral  justice. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  the  hypothesis  invented  to  account  for 
redemption,  far  from  assisting  our  views  of  God's  hatred  against 
sin,  represents  him  as  devising  an  expedient  which  brings  him  in- 
to an  inextricable  dilemma:  either  to  raise  his  creatures  above  all 
law,  by  granting  them  indulgences  in  sin,  or  to  exhibit  a  proof  of 
injustice  by  inflicting  the  same  penalty  twice  over. 

4.  As  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  proved  the  great  extent  of  God's 
benevolence,  and  at  the  same  time  evinced  his  love  of  righteous- 
ness and  hatred  of  sin; — -as  it  maintained  the  divine  authority, 
and  the  sinners  obligation  to  his  law,  and  thereby  exhibited  the 
equity  and  impartiality  of  his  supreme  and  holy  administration;  — 
the  moral  character  of  God  was  fully  manifested,  and  his  attri- 
butes harmoniously  exercised  in  the  plan  of  saving  sinners  through 
a  Redeemer. 

Though  the  grant  of  pardon  to  rebels  was  a  new  act,  which  his 
creatures  had  never  before  witnessed,  yet  he  makes  it  manifest  to 
them  that  he  has  adopted  no  new  principle  of  action;  that  no 
change  has  taken  place  in  his  nature,  but  that  the  pardon  of  sin- 
ners through  a  Redeemer  flows  from  the  same  attributes  which 
were  before  made  known,  and  by  which  his  creatures  had  been 
governed  from  the  beginning.  Hence  the  obedient  part  of  the  crea- 
tion are  guarded  against  delusion,  and  their  welfare  is  secured, 
because  there  is  nothing  in  this  plan  of  saving  sinners  that  is  cal^ 
culated  to  weaken  their  confidence  in  God  or  his  government;  but 
on  the  contrary,  his  attributes  are  exhibited  more  extensively  than 
before. 

From  what  has  been  said,  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  draw  two 
general  conclusions. 

1.  According  to  our  view  of  atonement,  the  redemption  of  sin- 
ners by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  flowed  from  all  thd  divine  attri- 
butes in  harmony:  it  was  done  for  the  sake  of  showing  mercy  to 
the  guilty  and  the  miserable,  which  was  a  display  of  benevolence: 
it  was  done  for  the  sake  of  guarding  his  creatures  from  falling  in- 
to error  concerning  his  nature,  or  his  act  of  administration  in  res- 
toring sinners,  which  was  a  display  of  his  moral  attribute  of  truth: 
it  was  done  for  the  sake  of  guarding  the  native  happiness  of  his 
creatures,  and  of  showing  that  no  partial  fondness  had  any  influ= 
fence  to  diminish  his  sacred  regard  to  universal  right,  which  clean- 
ly manifested  his  justice. 


330  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

2.  The  theory  of  our  opponents,  supposes  redemption  to  flow 
from  some  principle  in  the  Deity,  vvliieh  contradicts  every  known 
attribute  of  his  nature:  (1.)  It  supposes  him  to  have  no  disposition 
to  show  favour  to  the  fallen,  but  absolutely  to  execute  full  ven- 
geance for  every  crime,  which  contradicts  his  mercy  or  benevo- 
lence: (2)  It  supposes  him  to  impute  guilt  to  the  innocent  Redeem- 
er when  he  is  not  guilty,  which  must  be  a  false  charge,  and  there- 
fore his  truth  is  contradicted:  (3.)  It  supposes  him  to  liave  arrest- 
ed the  Redeemer  upon  tliis  false  charge,  and  to  have  legally 
punished  him  as  a  criminal,  and  thereby  to  have  violated  his  right 
to  the  character  and  consequences  of  innocence,  which  plainly 
contradicts  his  jujitice. 

And  after  all  this  is  done,  he  is  supposed  either  to  raise  sinners 
above  all  obligations  to  his  law,  or  else  to  impose  the  same  obli- 
gation over  again  that  has  been  to  all  intents  and  purposes  dis- 
charged, by  the  legal  condemnation  and  execution  of  the  surety  in 
the  sinner's  place. 

What  a  character,  to  be  displayed  to  the  view  of  the  universel 
It  exhibits  a  scene  well  calculated  to  inspire  all  intelligent  crea- 
tures with  gloomy  apprehensions,  that  God  is  about  to  abandon 
every  moral  principle  of  his  nature,  and  to  act  upon  those  of  false- 
hood, injustice  and  arbitrary  malevolence.  And  all  this  is  to  be 
done,  it  seems,  to  satisfy  divine  justice! 

I  pray  God  to  deliver  all  men  from  such  dangerous  and  ruinous 
delusions,  and  enable  tkem  rightly  to  contemplate  the  immutable 
perfections  of  his  nature,  as  they  were  exhibited  by  him  who  diedy 
the  just  for  the  unjust,  and  who  "has  entered  into  heaven  itself, 
now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us." 

As  to  the  objection,  that  Christ  died  upon  an  uncertainty,  with- 
out being  assured  of  a  single  soul  of  Adam's  race,  the  answer  is 
easy: 

The  salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy  is  secured  through  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  way  is  opened  for  all  who  live  to  years  of  ma- 
turity. Will  any  one  say  the  merit  of  our  Saviour's  work  is  really 
diminished  by  the  numbers  who  neglect  this  great  salvation?  Doesit 
depend  upon  them,  or  their  conduct,  whether  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion be  complete  or  not?  If  so,  the  Saviour  must  secure  theirabsolute 
salvation,  so  as  to  make  their  perdition  impossible,  in  order  to 
keep  them  from  destroying  his  own  merit!  Their  will  must  be  con- 
trolled by  an  irresistible  power,  lest  they  should  choose  to  conti- 
nae  in  sin,  and  thus  their  Redeemer  would  be  robbed  of  his   glory! 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  23  i 

The  truth  is,  that  as  we  advance  in  this  controversy,  it  appears 
more  and  more  evident  to  every  reflecting  mind,  that  the  Antinomi- 
an  scheme  must  be  received  in  all  its  parts,  or  must  be  demolished 
from  the  foundation.  The  single  point  of  legal  atonement,  supports 
the  whole  system  of  predestinarian  orthodoxy,  and  one  or  other  of 
these  three  things  must  be  our  inevitable  portion:  either  (l.)to  re- 
ceive the  entire  system  of  Antinomianism,  or  (2.)  to  contradict 
ourselves,  or  (3.)  to  disprove  and  abandon  the  notion  of  Christ's 
death  having  legally  discharged  all  penalties  in  behalf  of  sinners, 
which  is  the  chief  corner  stone  of  the  ("fulsome'*)  building. 

Had  it  been  our  Saviour's  purpose  to  save  mankind  by  force,  or 
any  particular  part  of  them,  he  doubtless  had  power  suflicient  to 
accomplish  his  design,  without  dying  on  the  cross;  and  had  such  a 
compulsive  system  been  consistent  with  the  moral  attributes  of 
God,  I  have  no  doubt  but  he  would  have  done  so:  he  would  have 
changed  every  man  from  sin  to  holiness,  or  rather,  from  bad  pro- 
pensities to  good  ones,  by  an  absolute  and  irresistible  influence;  but 
the  actions  of  a  person  thus  compelled  could  have  no  relation  to 
morality,  and  therefore  God's  moral  perfections  demanded  that 
they  should  be  saved,  if  at  all,  in  a  way  that  should  not  destroy 
their  agency:  for  this  reason  our  Saviour's  atonement  had  rela- 
tion to  the  moral  attributes  alone,  and  therefore  his  plan  must  be 
so  laid  as  only  to  influence  sinners  by  motives,  and  leave  them  to 
the  liberty  of  choice.        ./ 

The  merits  of  Christ  wM-e  never  intended  to  secure  the  salvation 
of  any  definite  number  of  men,  as  the  predestinarians  do  vainly 
talk:  but  to  open  the  ivay  to  heaven,  and  make  the  throne  of  grace 
accessible  to  all  mankind. 

"  By  whom  also  we  have  access  into  this  grace  wherein  we  stand 
and  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God."    Rom.  v.  2. 

<-And  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  it  shall  be  called  the  way 
of  holiness."  Isa.  xxxv.  8. 

"Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Jom  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life: 
no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me."  John  xiv.  6. 

"Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holiest 
by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new  ami  living  way,  which  he  hath  con- 
secrated for  us  through  the  vail,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh;  let  us 
draw  near  with  a  true  heart,"  &c.  Heb.  x.  19,  20. 

Thus  it  appears  the  blood  of  Christ  was  intended  to  open  a  way 
through  the  wilderness  of  sin  where  there  was  no  way,  that  sin- 
ners might  have  access  to  the  throne  of  grace. 


SAS  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

This  work  is  accomplished:  the  May  is  open:  we  are  under 
great  obligations  to  God  our  Saviour  for  this  invaluahle  privilege: 
and  surely  our  refusing  to  walk  in  the  way,  does  not  diminish  the 
merit  which  opened  it,  aod  Christ  is  under  no  necessity  of  forcing 
any  man  to  heaven,  for  fear  of  losing  his  merit,  or  the  glory  of  his 
performances.  We  might  as  well  say  God  was  under  the  necessity 
of  forcing  all  men  and  angels  to  continue  upright,  for  fep,r  of  lofiing 
hji^  merit  aad  glory  iu  their  creation. 


SECTION  VII. 

The  same  subject. 

Ouaprinciple  of  atonement  not  only  is  more  definite  and  inteU 
ligible  than  that  of  our  opponents;  but  also  accords  better  with 
the  providence  and  the  works  of  God, 

1.  It  agrees  better  with  the  state  of  man  in  the  present  world* 
If  Christ  died  to  discharge  every  penalty  of  justice  in  behalf  of 
the  human  rape,  Mheuce  is  it  that  the  wrath  of  God  still  abidetU 
on  all  impenitent  sinners,  and  that  th  •^'  are  condemned  already, 
by  the  very  sentence  that  w  as  executed  on  their  surety?  All  this 
is  darkness  and  confusion  upon  the  x\ntJnomian  scheme;  but  upon 
Qur  plan  the  incongruity  at  ouce  disappears.  Because  if  Christ 
died  to  procure  a  day  of  grace  for  us:  if  we  are  to  stand  our  trial 
here  for  a  future  state  of  reward  or  punishment,  the  calamities  of 
the  present  world  are  adapted  to  our  condition,  and  accord  per- 
fectly with  the  wise  and  benevolent  designs  of  providence, 

2.  It  agrees  better  with  thesimplicityof  the  gospel.  We  learn  from 
the  scriptures,  iliAt  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  and  >et  those  who  re- 
pent not  shall  die  for  their  own  sins,  and  every  man  shall  bear  his 
Qwn  burden.  That  he  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree;  and 
yet  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,  and  God,  without  respect  of 
jiersons,judgeth  according  to  every  man's  work.  These  are  irre- 
concilable contradictions  upon  the  plan  of  legal  atonement  which 
we  oppose;  but  nothing  can  be  plainer  or  more  consistent,  if  it  be 
true  (,hat  Chirst  died  to  give  us  the  privilege  of  obtaining  pardon, 
or  in  other  words,  that  the  redemption  through  his  blood  consists  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  liis  grace;  aii4 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  238 

not  in  a  legal  exoneration  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  upon  prin- 
ciples of  eternal  justice.  Our  doctrine  makes  the  day  of  grace  and 
the  day  of  judgment  harmonize  in  the  divine  economy.  It  recon- 
ciles the  dift'erent  offices  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  the  Saviour  and 
the  Judge  of  human  kind.  It  exalts  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  yet 
maintains  the  accountability  of  man;  and  shows  that  they  are  per- 
fectly consistent  with  eac!»  other.  If  the  sinner  repent  not,  it  is 
just  for  him  to  be  condemned:  and  if  he  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel,  it  is  just  for  him  to  be  forgiven,  because  universal  right 
has  been  secured  by  a  display  of  the  divine  attributes  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

What  stronger  evidence  could  be  given  of  God's  love  to  hijB 
creatures  on  the  one  hand,  and  his  regard  for  holiness  and  justice 
on  the  other,  than  for  his  only  begotten  son  to  assume  our  nature, 
lead  a  life  of  spotless  purity  among  the  disaffected  part  of  his 
creatures,  submit  to  the  dreadful  effects  of  moral  evil,  and  hang 
bleeding  I)etween  earth  and  heaven,  a  spectacle  to  angels  and  to 
men?  The  great  design  of  God  in  this  astonishing  event,  was  to 
exhibit  a  grand  and  awful  argument  or  proof  to  all  worlds,  that  sin 
is  such  a  dreadful  evil,  so  destructive  in  itself,  and  so  hateful  to 
the  pure  nature  of  Deity,  that  no  sinner  can  be  forgiven,  however 
penitent  he  may  be,  but  through  the  intercession  of  that  Redeemer, 
who  exhibited  ihe  direful  effects  of  sin,  in  his  own  bleeding  body 
on  the  tree.  He  that  was  rich  in  glory,  became  poor:  the  son  of 
God,  whose  right  hand  formed  the  stars  of  heaven,  takes  upon 
himself  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  becomes  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross!  Behold  him,  ye  heavens!  and  hear  him 
groan  his  last!  his  agonizing  spirit  as  it  were  abandoned  by  earth 
and  heaven,  cries  out  in  the  bleeding  anguish  of  distress, "  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me!  His  sweat  became  as 
great  drops  of  blood  falling  to  the  ground;  while  his  soul  was  ex- 
ceeding sorrov/ful  even  unto  death!"  With  all  the  innocence  and 
parity  of  heaven  in  his  nature,  he  is  wounded,  and  bruised,  and 
mangled  with  thorns  and  nails;  while  a  burden  of  grief  intolerable, 
presses  down  his  spirit.  Sin,  the  original  cause  of  all  misery,  is  held 
in  such  unchangeable  detestation  by  the  Creator,  that  to  discour- 
age the  practice  of  it,  and  to  exhibit  iis  dreadful  horrors,  the  Lord 
of  Glory  expires  under  that  misery  which  is  its  native  production. 

This  is  the  great  proof  of  God's  unchangeable  perfections:  and 
the  very  end  for  which  the  Redeemer  thus  suffered,  was,  "  To  de- 
clare his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God;  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time, 


234.  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

his  righleousiiess,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justiiier  of  him 
which  helieveth  iu  Jesus." 

The  Almighty  gave  proof  of  his  holy  attributes,  before  sin  enter- 
ed into  the  creation,  by  those  rewards,  uhich  evinced  his  appro- 
bation of  righteousness;  and  by  those  threafenings  or  penalties 
annexed  to  his  laws,  which  declared  his  abhorrence  of  moral 
evil.  But  after  sin  is  entered  into  the  world,  what  must  be  done? 
Can  angels  do  any  thing  to  justify  the  government?  No.  If  a  thou- 
sand of  them  were  sacrificed  for  man,  this  would  be  so  far  from 
proving  God's  regard  for  holiness  and  justice,  that  it  would  be  a 
demonstration  of  injustice  and  partiality.  No  being  less  tban  God 
can  do  any  thing  for  the  redemption  and  salvation  of  fallen  crea- 
tures. Divine  mercy  pities  fallen  men,  and  is  disposed  to  pardon 
all  that  will  submit  to  proper  government,  whereby  they  may  be 
qnalitied  to  become  members  of  the  peaceful  society  of  heaven;  but 
as  an  evidence  to  the  whole  creation,  that  this  pardon  does  not  re- 
sult from  any  disposition  to  connive  at  a  spirit  of  rebellion,  God 
takes  npon  himself  the  mortal  nature  of  man;  in  that  nature  he 
exhibits  a  shining  example  of  the  most  pure  andheavenly  virtue: 
in  that  nature  he  opposes  sin  in  all  its  secret  windings  in  the  heart 
and  life  of  man;  and  in  that  nature  he  takes  upon  himself  the  bur- 
den of  our  sins,  not  by  becoming  guilty,  but  by  submitting  to  bear 
the  excrutiating  effects  of  sin,  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.  Eve- 
ry groan  he  utters,  cries  aloud  to  earth  and  heaven:  behold  ivhat 
vianner  of  love  the  father  hath  bestowed  upon  man:  Behold  (he 
horrid  nature  and  tormenting  influence  of  moral  evil!  Behold  the 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last,  the  God  of  all  the  armies 
of  heaven,  thus  concealed  in  humanity,  and  bleeding  on  the  cross! 
Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  ivlio  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world! 

Behold  these  wounds  and  bruises,  sweat,  and  blood  and  tears: 
liear  those  strong  cries,  and  witness  those  dying  agonies,  as  a  c?c- 
■  monstration  of  God^s  righleousiiess — and  see  all  nature  corro- 
borate the  amazing  argument!  The  veil  of  the  temple  is  rent  from 
the  top  to  the  bottom;  the  mountains  tremble,  as  if  shaken  from 
their  foundation;  thegraves  are  opened;  the  sun  blushes  as  in  sack- 
cloth, and  hides  his  shining  face  in  darkness;  while  the  very  an- 
gels, it  may  be,  suspend  their  song;  and  all  the  heavenly  regions 
are  brought  to  pause  in  holy  and  astonished  silence,  while  God 
breaks  down  the  dreadful  barrier;  condemns  sin  to  eternal  infa- 
my, and  opens  the  gates  of  mercy  to  mankind! 

This  was  a  pro»f  of  the  divine  goodness  and  holiness,  which 
none  but  God  could  give:  for  if  Christ  was  am^re  creature,  be  wa.s 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION  235 

under  an  obligation  oi'perpettial  obedience  to  the  law  for  himself:  if 
he  voluntarily  left  his  own  duty,  which  the  law  required,  to  go  and 
do  that  which  it  did  not  require  of  him,  it  was  a  proof  of  disobedimce 
to  God's  government:  if  he  was  a  sinner,  he  deserved  what  came 
Upon  him:  if  he  was  an  innocent  and  holy  creature,  and  if  God  pun- 
ished him  as  a  criminal,  it  would  prove  nothing  but  injustice  and 
partiality.  But  if  the  eternal  God  himself,  who  was  under  no 
obligation  to  the  law  given  to  crcTatures,  voluntarily  came  under  it 
that  he  himself  might  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  his 
regards  for  righteousness  are  gloriously  displayed,  as  well  as  his 
compassion  for  miserable  offenders. 

This  argument  is  urged  with  peculiar  force  and  propriety,  by 
Mr.  Joseph  Benson,  who  revised  and  finished  Mr.  Fletcher's  "Vin- 
dication of  Christ's  Divinity,  inscribed  to  Dr.  Priestley." 

"According  to  the  apostle,"  says  he,  "one  principal  end  of  the 
death  of  Christ  was  to  demonstrate  God's  righteousness — that  is. 
the  purity  of  his  nature,  implying  his  infinite  hatred  to  sin,  the  au- 
thority of  his  law,  which  denounces  vengeance  against  the  sinner, 
and  the  equity  of  his  government, — or,  in  one  word,  his  justice. 
♦Justified  freely  says  he  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hath  set  forth  a  propitiation, 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  for  a  demonstration  of  his  righteous- 
ness, by  or  on  account  of  the  remission  of  past  sins,  through  the 
forbearance  of  God,  for  a  demonstration  I  say  of  his  righteousness 
in  this  present  time,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier  of 
him  that  believeth  in  Jesus,'  But  surely,  if  satisfaction  can  be  made 
for  the  injury  done  to  the  glory  of  God  by  all  the  sins  of  all  man- 
kind, and  their  salvation  from  eternal  destruction  into  everlasting 
life  and  happiness,  can  be  rendered  consistent  with  the  divine  at- 
tributes in  consequence  of  their  repentance  upon  such  easv  terms 
as  the  giving  up  of  one  mere  man  to  temporal  death  for  two  or 
three  days; — whatever  inference  the  intelligent  creation  of  God 
may  draw  from  hence  in  favour  of  his  clemency,  they  can  draw 
none  in  favour  of  his  righteousness  or  justice:  but  on  the  contrary, 
they  will  find  their  ideas  of  it  contracted;  and  will  be  inclined  to 
suppose,  both  that  sin  is  no  verij  great  evil,  and  that  God  is  not 
much  displeased  with  it;  inasmuch  as  \\id  forgives  the  complicated 
and  aggravated  guilt  of  so  many  myriads  of  sinners,  merely  be- 
cause one  mere  man,  like  tliemselves,  dies  for  them.  Surely  to 
talk  of  God's  righteousness  being  demonstrated  by  such  a  selienie 
as  this, — that  he  might  be  and  ajjpears  to  be  just,  while  he  is  the 
mcrfciful  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus,  would  be  highly 
absurd  aud_  ridiculous." — Uational  Vindication,  vol.  1,  j^cg^  119- 


236  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

As  this  argument  of  Mr.  Benson  not  only  supports  the  divinitjr 
of  our  Saviour,  but  proves  that  the  end  of  his  suffering  was  (o  de- 
mousti-ate  the  equity  of  God's  government,  by  displaying  the  great 
evil  of  sin,  and  the  Almighty's  displeasure  against  it,  his  conclu-. 
sion  stands  upon  the  very  principle  defended  in  these  pages,  and 
therefore  the  al)ove  quotation  is  another  proof  of  the  respectable 
authority  and  antiquity  of  this  doctrine,  and  that  it  is  not  a  novel- 
ty, never  before  heard  of  in  the  christian  world. 

3.  Our  view  of  redemption  is  better  calculated  than  the  op- 
posite to  influence  the  minds  of  angels  or  men,  and  to  reconcile 
all  things  in  Christ,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth  or  things  in 
heaven. 

If  the  Lord  Jesus  died,  not  to  give  man  a  right  to  demand  his  li- 
berty, but  to  open  a  way  of  salvation,  to  bring  him  nnder  a  gra* 
cious  government,  or  covenant  of  mercy,  and  thus  to  introduce 
men  into  the  society  of  angels,  not  by  constituting  them  innocent 
with  Antinomian  imputations,  but  by  purifying  them  unto  himself, 
a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works: — how  does  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  this  economy  shine  forth  and  influence  the  very 
angels  to  rejoice,  and  give  glory  to  God  in  the  highest!  Jesus 
displays  the  glory  of  God  before  them,  and  secures  the  influence 
of  the  divine  government:  through  his  name  sinners  are  pardon- 
ed and  saved,  and  not  till  his  grace  has  given  them  a  moral  fitness 
for  that  salvation;  therefore  the  interests  of  heaven  and  earth 
completely  centre  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  angels  rejoice  at 
the  salvation  of  sinners,  and  gladly  own  them  as  their  brethren. 

"In  this  our  first  period  of  existence,"  says  Dr.  Beattie,  "  our 
eye  cannot  penetrate  beyond  the  present  scene,  and  the  human  race 
appears  one  great  and  separate  community:  but  with  other  worlds, 
and  other  communities,  we  probably  may,  and  every  argument  fof 
the  truth  of  our  religion  gives  us  reason  to  think,  we  shall  be  con- 
nected hereafter.  And  if,  by  our  behaviour,  we  may,  even  while 
here,  as  our  Lord  positively  affirms,  heighten,  in  some  degree,  the 
felicity  of  angels,  our  salvation  may  hereafter  be  a  matter  of  im* 
porlauee,  not  to  us  only,  but  to  many  other  orders  of  immortal  be- 
ings. They,  it  is  true,  will  not  sutler  for  our  guilt,  nor  be  rewarded 
for  our  obedience.  But  it  is  not  absurd  to  imagine,  that  our  fall  and 
recovery  may  be  useful  to  them  as  an  exujnple:  and,  that  the  Di* 
vine  grace  manifested  in  our  redemption  may  raise  their  adoration 
and  gratitude  into  higher  raptures,  and  quicken  their  ardour  to 
inquire,  with  ever  new  delight,  into  the  dispensations  of  infinite 
wisdom.  This  is  not  mere  conjecture.  It  derives  plausibility  front 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  257 

many  analogies  in  nature,  as  well  as  from  Holy  Writ,  which  repre- 
sents the  mystery  of  our  redemption  as  an  object  of  curiosity  to  su» 
perior  beings,  and  our  repentance  as  an  occasion  of  their  joy." — 
BeattiePs  evidences,  page  133. 

This  subject  is  father  illustrated  by  Dr.  Porteus,  late  bishop  of 
London. 

«It  is,  I  believe,  generally  taken  for  granted,"  says  he,  "that  it 
was  for  the  human  race  alone,  that  Christ  syftered  and  died;  and 
we  are  then  asked,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  whether  it  be  conceiva- 
ble, or  in  any  degree  credible,  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  should 
submit  to  so  much  indignity  and  so  much  misery  for  the  fallen,  the 
wicked,  the  wretched  inhabitants  of  this  small  globe  of  earth, 
which  is  as  a  grain  of  sand  to  a  mountain,  a  mere  speck  in  the 
universe,  when  compared  with  that  immensity  of  worlds,  which  the 
sagacity  of  a  great  modern  astronomer  has  discovered  in  the  bound*- 
less  regions  of  space. 

"But  on  what  ground  is  it  concluded,  that  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
death  extend  no  farther  than  to  ourselves.'*  As  well  might  we  sup- 
pose, that  the  sun  was  placed  in  the  firmament  merely  to  illumi» 
nate  and  warm  this  earth  that  we  inhabit.  To  the  vulgar  and  the 
illiterate  this  actually  appears  to  be  the  case.  But  philosophy 
teaches  us  better  things.  It  enlarges  our  contracted  views  of  di- 
vine beneficence,  and  brings  us  acquainted  with  other  planets  and 
other  worlds,  which  share  with  us  the  cheering  influence  and  the 
vivifying  warmth  of  that  glorious  luminary.  Isjt  not  then  a  fair 
analogy  to  conclude,  that  the  great  'spiritual  light  of  the  world,' 
the  fountain  of  life,  and  health,  and  joy  to  the  soul,  does  not  scat- 
ter his  blessings  over  the  creation  with  a  sparing  hand,  and  that 
the  Sun  of  Righteousness  rises  with  healing  in  iiis  wings  to  other 
orders  of  beings  besides  ourselves.''  Nor  does  this  conclusion  rest 
on  analogy  alone.  It  is  evident  from  scripture  itself,  that  we  ar« 
by  no  means  the  only  creatures  in  the  universe  interested  in  the 
sacrifice  of  our  Redeemer.  We  are  expressly  told,  that  as  by  him 
were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth, 
visible  and  invisible;  and  by  him  all  things  consist:  so  by  him  also 
was  God  pleased  (having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his 
cross)  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,  whether  they  be  things 
in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven:  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  ful- 
ness of  times,  he  might  gather  together  in  one,  'all  things  in  Christ, 
both  which  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  in  earth,  •vea  in  him.'* 

»  Col.  i.  16,  20.  Eph.  i.  10. 
H  h 


538  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

"From  intimations  such  as  these,  it  is  highly  probable,  thatia 
the  great  work  of  redemption  as  well  as  of  creation,  there  is  a 
vast  stupendous  plan  of  wisdom,  of  which  we  cannot  at  present 
so  much  as  conceive  the  whole  compass  and  extent.  And  if  we 
could  assist  and  improve  the  mental  as  we  can  the  corporeal  sight; 
if  we  could  magnify  and  bring  nearer  to  us  by  the  help  of  instru'- 
ments,  the  great  component  parts  of  the  spiritual,  as  we  do  the 
vast  bodies  of  the  natural  world;  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the 
resemblance  and  analogy  would  hold  between  them  in  this  as  it 
does  in  many  other  well-known  instances;  and  that  a  scene  of 
wonders  would  burst  in  upon  us  from  the  one,  at  least  equal,  if  not 
superior,  to  those  which  the  united  powers  of  astronomy  and  of  ap- 
tics  disclose  to  us  in  the  other. 

"If  this  train  of  reasoning  be  just;  if  the  redemption  wrought  by 
Christ  extended  to  other  worlds;  if  its  virtues  penetrate  even  into 
keaven  itself;  if  it  gather  together  all  things  in  Christ;  who  will 
then  say,  that  the  dignity  of  the  agent  was  disproportioned  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  work;  and  that  it  w  as  not  a  scene  sufficiently 
splendid  for  the  Son  of  God  himself  to  appear  upon,  and  to  display 
the  riches  of  his  love,  not  only  to  the  race  of  man,  but  to  ma  ny 
other ordersof intelligent  beings."  Porteus^s  Sermons,pag'e274i,2V5. 

The  above  sentiments  may  apjjear  alarming  to  those  who  may 
be  disposed  to  limit  the  Holy  One  of  Israel;  but  as  the  heaven  is 
high  above  the  earth,  so  great  is  his  mercy  towards  his  creatures: 
<'my  thoughts  are  not  your  thoughts,  neither  are  my  ways  your 
ways,  saith  the  Lord."  As  the  sentiment  of  those  respectable  au- 
thors accords  with  the  perfections  of  God,  the  analogy  of  nature, 
and  the  testimony  of  revelation,  we  are  surely  warranted  in  yield- 
ing to  their  conclusion,  so  far  at  least,  as  to  believe  that  all  God's 
upright  creatures  receive  advantage  by  the  display  of  his  glory  in 
the  plan  of  redemption  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Are  they  not  in- 
terested in  the  divine  attributes  as  well  as  mau?  And  if  redemption 
displayed  those  attributes  beyond  every  thing  that  has  appeared 
since  the  creation,  how  can  it  be  imagined  that  the  bene- 
fit of  this  wonderful  event  should  be  confined  alone  to  us  and  our 
children?  Are  the  angels  of  heaven  indifterent  spectators.?  Or  are 
their  interests  closely  connected  with  ours  in  that  common  Sa- 
viour who  came  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himseH? 

Whether  the  following  scriptures  do  not  establish  this  doctrine, 
I  leave  the  reader  to  judge: 

"In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgive- 
ness oi*  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace,  having  made 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  239 

known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  Lis  will,  according  to  his  good  plea- 
sure, which  he  hath  purposed  in  himself:  [namely]  that  in  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  fullness  of  times  [when  all  the  times  and  dispen- 
sations of  his  grace  and  providence  shall  be  full  or  completed]  he 
might  gather  together  in  one.  all  thiugs  in  Christ,  both  which  are 
in  heaven  and  which  are  in  earth,  even  in  him.  Eph.  i.  T,  9,  10. 
In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  [and  what  has 
that  redemption  accomplished]  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  in  his 
name  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first-born  of  every 
creature;  for  by  him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven, 
and  that  are  inearth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones, 
or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers;  all  things  were  created 
by  him  and  for  him;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all 
things  consist;  and  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church;  who  is 
the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead,  that  in  all  things  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence:  for  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him 
should  all  fulness  dwell:  and  (having  made  peace  through  the  blood 
of  his  cross)  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself;  by  him,  I 
say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth  or  things  in  heaven.  Col.  i. 
14, 15,  &c.  Of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  na- 
med.    Eph.  iii.  15. 

O  for  this  love  let  rocks  and  hills, 
Their  lasting  silence  break; 
And  all  harmonious  human  tongues, 
The  Saviour's  praises  speak. 

Angels,  assist  our  mighty  joys, 
Strike  all  your  harps  of  gold; 
But  when  you  raise  your  highest  notes, 
His  love  can  ne'er  be  told. 


SECTION  vm. 

The  two  systems  of  redemption^  tested  by  the  native  consequences 
which  flow  from  them. 

As  no  doctrine,  founded  in  truth,  will  be  discredited  by  exami- 
nation, or  be  put  out  of  countenance  by  an  exposure  of  its  genu- 
ine consequences;  we  desire  that  our  views  of  atonement  may  be 


3*0  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

gcrutinized,  and  traced  in  all  their  native  tendency*,  not  doubting 
the  more  clearly  truth  is  seen,  the  mare  conviction  it  will  car- 
ry to  every  candid  mind.  I  purpose,  in  this  section,  to  exhibit 
some  other  eft'ects  of  the  two  opposing  systems,  that  we  may 
judge  of  them  by  their  fruits. 

1.  In  what  a  consistent,  and  soul-cheering  light  does  our  plan 
represent  that  Eternal  Being,  who  is  love  in  the  abstract,  and  of 
whose  goodness  there  is  no  end!  It  represents  him  as  exercising 
his  jwwer,  and  wisdom^  and  justice,  in  perpetual  subserviency  to 
his  pure  and  everlasting  kindness.  Why  did  he  lay  down  a  plan 
of  salvation,  by  a  demonstration  of  his  righteousness  througli  a 
Redeemer.''  That,  everlasting  felicity  miglit  flow  to  mortal  men. 
Why  does  he  determine  that  justice  and  holiness  shall  be  display- 
ed and  satisfied  by  the  punishment  of  obdurate  and  incorrigible 
sinners.?  That  the  principles  of  moral  order  may  not  be  deranged 
or  interrupted,  through  which  the  benignity  of  God  supports  the 
unceasing  happiness  of  heaven.  Why  does  he  govern  his  children 
by  moral  motives,  and  not  by  a  compulsive  or  irresistible  influence? 
That  they  may  be  assimilated  into  the  Divine  nature,  and  enjoy 
that  ineffable  tranquillity  which  is  inseparable  from  a  voluntary 
cjipice,  Why  does  he  give  some  of  his  servants  one  talent,  some 
two,  and  others  five?  That  his  manifold  wisdom  may  be  display- 
ed, a  pleasing  variety  be  maintained  through  the  spiritual  as  well 
AS  the  natural  world,  that  all  hjs  children,  the  constitution  of 
whose  nature  is  such,  that  few  sources  of  delight  are  more  reviv« 
ing  to  them  than  variety,  may  thus  behold  his  wonderful  works, 
and  exercise  tlieir  different  gifts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  all. 
Here  is  no  reprobation  or  free-wrath;  no  partial  or  humorous 
fondness  for  one  to  the  neglect  of  another;  no  double  dealing,  dis-. 
simulation  or  hypoeris;^  the  parts  all  taken  together  exhil)it  one 
general  scheme  of  benevolence,  transporting  to  an  intelligent  na^ 
ture.  and  every  way  worthy  of  God. 

Dr.  Clarke,  speaking  of  the  Supreme  Being,  says,  "a  general 
definition  of  this  Great  First  Cause,  as  far  as  human  words  dare 
attempt  one, may  be  thus  given.  The  eternal,  independent,  and 
self-existent  Being:  the  Being  whose  purposes  and  actions  spring 
from  himself,  without  foreign  motive  or  influence:  He  who  is  ab- 
solute in  dominion:  the  mo»t  pure,  most  simple,  most  spiritual  of 
all  essences:  infinitely  benevolent,  beneficent,  true  and  holy:  the 
cause  of  all  being,  the  upholder  of  all  things:  infinitely  happy, 
because  infinitely  good;  and  eternally  self-sufticient,  needing  no* 
thing  that  he  has  made.    Illimitable  in  his  immensity,  jncoijceiva* 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  341 

We  ill  his  mode  of  existence,  and  indescribable  in  his  essence:  known 
fully  only  to  himself,  because  an  infinite  mind  can  only  be  com- 
prehended by  itself.  In  a  word,  a  Being  who,  from  his  infinite 
wisdom,  cannot  err  or  be  deceived;  and  who,  from  his  infinite 
goodness,  can  do  nothing  but  what  is  eternally  just,  right,  and 
kind."     Comment  on  the  first  of  Genesis. 

In  the  mouth  of  those  three  witnesses,  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr.  Clarke, 
and  the  apostle  John,  let  the  truth  be  established,  that  Godis  love: 
or,  in  other  words,  that  goodness  is  the  leading  principle  of  his 
conduct  towards  his  creatures,  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation 
to  eternity,  and  that  no  other  attribute  of  his  nature  ever  did, 
or  ever  will,  contradict  for  a  moment,  that  glorious  and  amiable 
perfection  which  is  the  fountain  of  all  happiness,  and  without 
which,  our  Creator  would  be  an  object  of  terror  and  dismay,  and 
would  have  nothing  attracting  in  his  nature.  Power  and  wisdom 
have  no  charms  but  what  they  derive  from  benevolence:  remove 
them  from  under  its  influence,  and  they  are  objects  of  indiffer- 
ence, or  of  disgust  and  detestation.  The  Devil  possesses  both 
wisdom  and  power;  yet  he  is  an  object  of  our  just  abhorrence,  for 
this  reason  only,  that  his  faculties  are  no  longer  directed  by  love 
and  kindness,  but  by  injustice  and  malevolence. 

"Remove  goodness  from  all  the  other  divine  attributes,"  says 
Dr.  Brown,  "and  suppose  the  Supreme  Being  unconcerned  for  the 
happiness  of  his  creation,  and  say,  whether  his  nature  would  then 
appear  as  amiable,  adorable,  and  transcendently  excellent,  as  it 
uow  appears  to  every  reflecting  mind.  And  if  goodness  constitute 
the  supreme  glory  of  the  divine  nature,  that  which  gives  to  every 
other  perfection  its  true  beauty  and  light,  and  completes  the  real 
character  of  Deity;  is  it  possible  that  any  human  excellence  or 
advantage  should  compensate  for  the  absence  of  this  primary  vir- 
tuet"    Brown's  "Natural  Equality  of  Men,"  page  163. 

2.  As  our  doctrine  glorifies  God,  on  the  one  hand,  so,  on  the  other, 
it  opposes  every  thing  that  is  contrary  to  his  nature.  Nothing 
can  be  more  discouraging  to  sin  of  every  description:  for  it  repre- 
sents sin  as  the  parent  or  first  cause  of  all  misery; — as  waging  war 
against  the  nature  of  God; — as  being  unjust,  unreasonable,  inex- 
pressibly detestable;— .and  as  assaulting  the  peace  and  happinesB 
of  the  whole  intelligent  creation.  If  the  Lord  of  Glory  came  down 
from  heaven  to  restore  our  lapsed  powers;  if  he  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross,  for  our  redemption;  and  if  we  continually  re- 
sist all  the  influeaces  of  his  grace,  multiply  our  crimes,  and  conti- 


84?  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Bue  to  injure  ami  ruin  our  moral  faculties  till  our  probation  is 
over — what  can  we  expect  but  sudden  destruction,  seeing  there  re- 
maineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  looking 
for  of  judgment,  and  fiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  ad- 
versaries? If  we  reject  the  offers  of  pardon,  and  harden  our  hearts 
to  the  last,  as  Sure  as  God  is  eternally  good,  just  and  holy,  we  shall 
J>e  banished  from  his  presence  and  the  presence  of  his  holy  angels, 
into  the  pit  of  destruction,  with  the  fallen  spirits  who  have  obsti- 
nately prepared  themselves  for  those  regions  of  confusion  and  des- 
pair,by  treasuring  up  Mrath  against  the  day  of  wrath,  and  revela- 
tion of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God. 

3.  If  all  the  divine  perfections,  the  principles  of  God's  moral 
government,  and  the  common  interests  of  the  heavenly  regions, 
stood  jointly  opposed  to  man's  salvation,  till  they  were  reconciled 
to  it  in  Jesus  Christ; — what  can  be  imagined  more  adapted  to  the 
wants  of  men  than  our  doctrine,  or  better  calculated  to  influence 
them,  with  all  humility  of  mind,  to  depend  upon  Christ  for  salva- 
tion? If  they  expect  or  endeavour  to  attain  it  any  other  way,  than 
this  which  is  procured  by  his  meritorious  death  and  intercession, 
they  might  as  well  undertake  to  demolish  the  throne  of  God,  or  to 
change  his  immutable  nature.  It  is  evident  that  Christ,  with  us, 
is  all  in  all:  we  are  dependent  on  him  for  wisdom,  righteousness, 
sanctification,  and  redemption.  Our  Saviour  has  died  for  us;  but 
it  is  not  to  give  us  a  legal  discharge,  and  put  the  government  out  of 
his  own  hands;  he  still  keeps  us  in  a  state  of  proper  dependence, 
and  we  must  approach  in  his  name,  as  humble  suppliants,  for  par- 
don, and  for  all  things  needful  for  life  and  godliness. 

Whereas  the  opposite  system  encourages  lawless  presumption^ 
by  assuring  the  elect  they  are  such  eternal  favourites  of  God,  that 
his  decree  secures  their  salvation  as  absolutely  as  the  pillars  of  hea- 
ven are  secured.  Their  sins  can  never  alter  the  decree;  therefore 
they  may  rest  safe  and  satisfied  in  the  midst  of  their  iniquities.  But 
he  whose  name  has  been  called  Jesus,  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins:  consequently  he  who  trusts  to  be  saved  in  his  sins,  is  not 
depending  upon  Christ  for  salvation.  As  the  plan  of  our  Redeemer 
is  to  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works;— 
as  this  is  his  method  of  saving  sinners, — it  is  ridiculous  for  any 
man  to  look  for  salvation  some  other  way,  and  call  this  depending 
upon  Christ. 

And  if  they  say  the  unchangeable  decree  of  God  secures  their 
sanctification  as  absolutely  as  their  glorification,  this  alters  not 
the  matter:  for  behold  an  elect  sinner  indulging  his  evil  nature 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  243 

with  presumptuous  unconcern:  while  Christand  the'gospel  are  call- 
ing him  to  repentance  and  amendment,  with  assurances  of  aftording 
him  every  necessary  aid,  he  replies,  and  very  consistently  upon 
the  predestinarian  hypothesis,  that  the  decree  of  God  is  unaltera- 
bly fixed,  and  the  precise  time  of  its  operation;  therefore  when  the 
time  comes,  he  will  be  dra^vn  out  of  his  sins  as  sure  as  God  is 
omnipotent:  as  he  does  not  feel  this  irresistible  operation  at  pre- 
sent, he  waits  patiently  and  rests  very  securely,  assuredly  gather- 
ing that  the  day  of  power  will  approach  in  due  season,  and  des- 
troy his  sins  by  as  absolute  an  influence  as  was  felt  by  the  Egyp- 
tian host  when  they  were  overwhelmed  in  the  mighty  waters.  Now 
who  does  not  perceive  that  this  man  is  depending,  not  upon  Christ, 
who  says,  now  is  the  accepted  time,  and  now  is  the  day  of  salvation; 
but  upon  the  original  act  of  predestination.  The  decree  is  his  de- 
pendence; and  if  it  should  fail  him,  or  prove  to  be  an  Autinomian 
chimera,  he  will  fall  as  "a  foolish  man  who  built  his  house  upon 
the  sand:  but  whosoever  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and  doeth 
them,  (that  is,dependeth  upon  me  for  salvation,)  I  will  liken  him 
unto  a  wise  man,  which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock;  atid  the  rain 
descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon 
that  house:  and  it  fell  not:  for  it  was  founded  upon  a  rock."  Matt. 
vii.  24. 

Here  it  will  be  objected,  that  Arminians  are  the  men  who  are 
deficient  in  a  proper  trust  upon  the  Saviour,  because  they  do  not 
expect  him  to  draw  them  to  heaven  by  a  force  which  cannot  be  re- 
sisted. The  notion  that  final  salvation  or  damnation  will  turn  in 
any  degree  upon  the  creature's  agency,  has  been  thought  to  rise 
from  the  natural  pride  of  man's  heart,  and  that  a  christian  can- 
not be  truly  humble  till  he  is  brought  to  believe  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  take  a  single  step  towards  heaven,  but  as  he  is  im- 
pelled by  an  irresistible  power.  While  governed  by  the  Armini- 
an  belief,  he  depends,  in  part  at  least,  upon  himself;  whereas  a 
truly  humble  christian  depends  solely  upon  Christ  to  do  every  thing 
that  is  necessary  to  his  salvation.  Answer: 

1.  This  objection  supposes  that  humility  is  inseparable  from 
the  belief,  that  we  are  destitute  of  agency,  or  that  our  will  is  con- 
trolled irresistibly:  for  if  humility  may  exist  separate  from  that 
belief,  it  is  not  essential  to  humility,  and  of  course  an  Arminian 
may  bo  truly  humble  with  the  full  belief  that  there  is  something 
for  him  to  do  which  ho  may  neglect,  and  the  neglect  of  which  will 
forfeit  his  salvation.  It  also  follows,  if  such  a  belief  and  a  spirit 
of  humility  be  not  essentially  connected  toi^othcr,  that  a   Calvin- 


244  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ist  may  be  as  proud  with  his  belief,  as  if  he  believed  the  Armini* 
an  doctrine.  And  if  a  man  can  be  truly  humble,  and  repose  a  true 
coniideuee  in  his  Saviour,  without  that  belief,  he  does  not  need  it 
to  produce  those  effects,  because  they  are  produced  without  it, 
and  entirely  independent  of  its  mighty  influence. 

But  if  it  be  affirmed,  that  the  predestinarian  faith  and  christian 
humility  are  inseparable  from  each  other,  these  consequences  will 
follow:  First,  that  all  sinners,  M'ho  can  but  persuade  themselves 
that  salvation  depends  not  at  all  upon  their  doings,  but  that 
Christ  mast  do  all  for  them,  and  do  it  irresistibly,  are  thereby 
brought  into  a  state  of  true  christian  humility,  and  gospel  confi- 
dence in  their  Saviour.  Secondly,  that  the  angels  who  sinned,  and 
Adam  in  Paradise,  were  destitute  of  true  humility  and  a  right  de- 
pendence on  God,  unless  they  believed  their  standing  depended 
not  upon  any  action  of  their  own,  and  that  every  thing  necessary 
to  their  perseverance  in  righteousness  would  be  produced  by  the 
irresistible  operations  of  omnipotence. 

If  they  believed  this,  their  belief  was  either  true  or  false;  if  it 
was  true,  then  their  apostacy  did  not  result  from  the  neglect  of 
any  thing  depending  upon  their  own  power,  but  from  some  volun- 
tary act  of  their  Creator;  if  it  was  not  true,  and  yet  they  must  be- 
lieve it  in  order  to  continue  humble,  we  say  their  humility  v»'a3 
maintained  by  believing  a  falsehood. 

Thirdly:  That  a  christian  to  continue  truly  humble,  must  not 
labour  to  keep  himself  in  the  love  of  God]  for  every  attempt  of  the 
kind  arises  from  a  belief  that  he  has  power  to  do  something  neces- 
sary to  his  salvation,  v.hich  belief  is  supposed  to  destroy  his  hu- 
mility. For  if  he  believes  he  has  no  power  to  do  any  good  thing 
and  still  tries  to  do  many  good  things,  you  say  his  christian  obe- 
dience consists  in  trying  to  do  what  he  at  the  same  time  believes  to 
be  impossible.  If  an  irresistible  power  is  to  do  for  him,  and  in 
him,  everij  thing  that  is  necessary,  he  cannot  surely  aim  at  doing 
any  thing  else,  without  labouring  to  do  that  which  is  unnecessary; 
a  kind  of  work  that  holds  a  close  connexion  with  the  popish  doc- 
trine of  supererogation.  And  if  he  only  labours  to  do  the  same 
things  which  the  irresistible  power  is  to  produce,  does  this  arise 
from  a  belief  that  his  exertions  will  make  the  force  more  than 
irresistible,  or  from  a  conviction  that  it  may  be  resisted,  and  that 
it  is  really  necessary  for  him  to  labour  for  the  meat  which  endur- 
eth  unto  everlasting  life?     John  vi.  27. 

The  truth  is,  that  a  gospel  trust  upon  Christ  is  the  trust  of  a 
servant  who  feels  his  responsibility,  and  his  need  of  divine  sup? 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION  545 

portj  but  who  does  not  depend  upon  the  Master  to  obey  his  own 
commandments,  or  to  deliver  him  from  the  obligation  and  necessi- 
ty of  obeying  them. 

True  humility  arises,  not  from  a  belief  that  we  have  no  power, 
but  from  a  conviction  of  our  dependance  upon  God  for  the  power" 
we  possess,  and  for  the  continuance  of  it,  together  with  a  convic- 
tion of  our  obligation  to  use  that  power  according  to  the  directions 
of  him  who  gave  it,  and  of  our  natural  proneness  to  use  it  wrong. 
Did  any  man  ever  feel  humbled  and  debased  from  considering  his 
inability  to  create  new  worlds,  or  to  eontroul  the  planets  of  heaven? 
And  when  a  child  has  a  little  strength  to  walk,  but  cannot  move 
forward  without  leaning  upon  his  father's  arm,  does  he  not  feel  his 
dependance  more  than  a  person  feels  his  dependance  upon  the 
earthy  while  it  supports  him  by  a  law  of  nature  which  he  cannot 
resist?  A  christian  humility  consists  in  a  conscious  sense  of  his 
weakness,  which  necessarily  supposes  some  degree  of  activity  or 
povyer,  without  which  it  can  have  no  existence,  for  certainly  where 
there  is  no  power  there  can  be  no  weakness,  because  the  meau» 
ing  of  the  word  is,  a  small  degree  of  power. 

2.  The  objection  supposes  that  the  work  of  a  christian  in  doing 
the  will  of  God,  which  is  using  his  power  to  the  end  for  which  it 
was  given,  has  a  native  tendency  to  produce  pride;  to  keep  him 
humble,  they  say,  he  must  be  able  to  do  nothing,  but  Christ  must 
do  all:  if  you  permit  him  to  work  out  his  own  salvation,  he  will 
feel  his  importance,  and  be  proud  of  his  own  performances.  That 
men  may  be,  and  often  are,  proud  of  their  own  works  is  granted; 
but  this  only  happens  when  they  lose  sight  of  their  extreme  weak- 
ness and  perpetual  dependance  on  God:  bring  them  to  a  sense  of 
this,  if  you  would  subdue  their  pride,  and  never  charge  God  fool* 
ishly,  by  supposing  that  pride  naturally  rises  out  of  the  proper  ex* 
ercise  of  those  faculties  which  he  has  given  to  his  creatures. 

I  am  apt  to  think  it  rises  from  very  different  sources:  are  men 
never  proud  of  any  thing  but  what  is  produced  by  their  own 
works?  are  they  not  proud  of  their  natural  beauty,  wit  or  noble 
birth,  things  which  have  not  been  produced  by  their  own  activity? 
Suppose  two  men  have  been  exalted  to  offices  of  the  highest  trust 
and  honour  in  a  nation:  one  has  been  gradually  raised  on  account 
of  his  integrity  and  good  conduct;  the  other,  without  any  regard 
to  his  works,  has  been  suddenly  elevated  to  this  honourable 
height:  which  of  those  men  would  be  the  more  likely  to  be  high- 
minded  on  account  of  the  great  favour  he  had  received  at  court? 
The  one,  you  say,  has  all  his  works  to  boast  of,  and  th«  otter  hd« 
I  J 


246  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

received  his  gratuitous  election  without  either  works  or  condi- 
tions: yet  it  is  evident  from  the  common  experience  of  mankind, 
that  the  antlnomian  courtier  will  be  more  apt  to  have  exalted  no- 
tions of  himself  than  his  neighbour,  who  had  been  thus  favoured 
on  account  of  his  integrity  and  good  conduct. 

The  truth  is,  when  men  know  they  are  favourites,  it  is  very 
common  for  them  to  value  themselves  highly  upon  it,  though  the 
partiality  exercised  towards  them  be  not  founded  upon  any  of  their 
works.  It  is  enough  that  they  have  the  preference  to  others, 
Hvhom  they  are  fond  to  consider  as  inferiors,  for  no  other  reason 
but  because  they  have  not  heen  so  highly  exalted.  And  if  I  might 
be  indulged  in  s,uch  a  speculation,  I  would  even  venture  to  pre- 
sume it  not  impossible  that  thousands  of  the  elect  in  Zyon  have 
reflected  upon  the  amazing  fondness  of  their  prince,  upon  their 
being  preferred  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  as  the  eternal  favourites 
of  God,  with  d  secret  gratification  very  like  to  that  complained  of 
in  the  presenl  objection- 
s'. Do  not  all  men  till  the  ground,  or  exercise  themselves  in 
Other  works  of  industry,  from  a  conviction  that  their  performances 
are  needful  to  Ihe  sustenance  of  life.^  They  know  they  are  de- 
pendant on  God  for  a  harvest;  but  they  believe  at  the  same  time, 
that  their  own  works  are  so  necessary,  that  a  neglect  of  them  will 
bring  poverty  or  death,  and  idleness  will  cover  man  with  rags. — 
Will  this  conviction,  and  consequent  diligence,  necessarily  pro- 
duce self-confidence?  or  is  the  diligent  man  more  apt  to  be  proud, 
who  expects  to  be  preserved  in  a  way  of  industry,  than  he  who  ne- 
glects his  business,  and  hopes  to  be  supported  some  other  way.^  I 
presume  our  opponents  will  not  deny  that  the  God  of  nature  has 
suspended  our  preservation  upon  the  condition  of  industry,  and 
that  a  total  neglect  of  it  will  speedily  terminate  in  death:  if  they 
say,  therefore,  that  the  performance  of  conditions,  from  a  convic- 
tion of  their  being  so  essential,  that  a  neglect  of  them  will  deprive 
us  of  the  blessings  connected  with  the  performance,  naturally  or 
necessarily  leads  to  pride,  they  accuse  the  God  of  nature  and  pro- 
vidence with  an  egregious  blunder  in  his  arrangements,  seeing, 
according  to  them,  the  present  constitution  of  the  world  has  a  na- 
tive tendency  to  encourage  haughtiness  and  selfish  independence. 

4-.  Our  doctrine  gives  every  encouragement  to  sinners,  at  the 
same  time  that  it  discourages  sin,  and  every  vain  presumption. 

It  teaches  that  goodness  is  the  leading  principle  of  the  Divine 
Creator  towards  all  mankind:  that  there  is  nothing  in  his  nature 
which  delights  in  our  mis-ery:  that  the  redemption  which  is  in 


PLAN  QF  SALVATION.  S^r 

Jesu^  Christ  has  opened  a  door  of  salvation  for  all  men:  and  that 
everlasting  happiness  is  secured  to  all  who  die  in  infancy,  to  all 
heathens  who/ear  God  and  ivork  righteousness,  (according  to  the 
light  they  have,)  and  to  all  christians  who  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel.  Acts  X.  34.  Mark  i.  15. 

The  other  very  naturally  leads  to  presumption  or  despair.  The 
fancied  elect  may  presume  upon  absolute  security  and  inamissi- 
ble  salvation;  but  the  reprobate  is  destined  to  the  regions  of  dark- 
ness, and  may  bemoan  his  bitter  fate  in  vain.  Our  opponents  teJl 
us,  however,  that  we  know  not  who  are  elected,  and  who  are  not. 
What  then?  This  only  leaves  us  doubtful  whether  we  mu£t  pre- 
sume or  despair,  and  when  the  point  is  settled  in  our  minds,  on  one 
iide  or  the  other,  its  corresponding  consequence  follows  as  natu- 
rally as  light  flows  from  the  sun.  But  it  is  said  that  our  notions 
are  discouraging  to  the  penitent,  because  we  say  salvation  is  sus- 
pended upon  his  own  works,  while  he  feels,  in  fact,  that  he  can 
do.nothing.  We  answer,  the  man  who  is  not  satisfied  till  he  has 
an  assurance  that  his  future  salvation  or  destruction  depends  not 
at  all  upon  his  doings,  is  pleading  for  as  great  encouragement  as 
any  sinner  in  the  w  orld  could  desire:  namely,  such  as  shall  assure 
him  there  is  no  danger  in  wickedness,  and  no  benefit  in  refsrma' 
f  ion,  for  the  salvation  of  a  man's  soul.  Our  doctrine  gives  every 
encouragement,  excepting  such  as  shall  influence  men  to  presume 
upon  impunity  in  their  disobedience.  The  Spirit  is  ready  to  help 
our  infirmities,  and  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal;  there- 
fore we  have  every' thing  to  revive  our  hopes,  provided  we  be  will- 
ing to  depend  upon  Christ  for  salvation,  and  not  upon  our  vaiu 
delusions. 

5.  The  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart,  or  of  gospel  holiness,  na- 
turally follows  from  our  view  of  redemption:  for  if  Christ  died  to 
open  the  way  for  men  to  be  saved  upon  certain  conditions,  and  if 
those  conditions  are,  a  submission  to  the  divine  government,  and  a 
conformity  of  our  souls  to  the  holy  nature  of  God,  it  plainly  follows, 
that  except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 
John.  iii.  3.  If  the  death  of  Christ  alone  fully  satisfied  the  divine 
attributes  in  the  actual  salvation  of  sinners,  then  nothing  else  is  ne. 
cessary  to  their  salvation;  and  neither  repentance,  faith  nor  holi- 
ness are  needful  to  make  their  final  happiness  accord  with  the  jus- 
tice and  purity  of  God,  since  as  our  opponents  tell  us,  every  attri- 
bute was  satisfied  with  their  salvation,  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
by  nothing  else.  Here  stands  a  sinner  for  whom  the  Redeemer  suf- 
fered on  the  cross:  would  the  attributes  of  God  be  satisfied  for  him 


g48  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

to  be  taken  to  heaven  in  his  present  impenitence  or  not?  If  they 
would,  a  change  of  heart  is  not  needful  to  make  a  sinner's  glorifi- 
cation accord  with  the  divine  nature;  if  they  would  not,  then  some- 
thing is  still  necessary  to  reconcile  God  to  our  admittance  into  his 
everlasting  kingdom.  Consequently  our  doctrine  is  true,  that 
Christ's  death  rendered  such  satisfaction  as  reconciled  the  divine 
justice  and  holiness  to  man's  probation,  and  to  the  free  offer  of  eter- 
nal life  to  every  man;  but  that  the  act  of  God,  in  the  grant  of  par- 
tlon,  and  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  our  sanctification,  are 
no  less  essential  than  his  death,  to  satisfy  them  in  our  final  aecep. 
tance,  or  glorification  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high. 
Hence  it  appears  that  ours  is  the  only  system  which  makes  a  change 
of  heart  and  gospel  holiness  essentially  and  indispensably  necessa» 
ry  to  salvation. 


SECTION  IX. 

Our  system  harmonizes  the  doctrines  and  clears  up  tnany  difficult 
passages  of  revelation. 

The  principle  defended  in  these  pages  unites  and  harmonizes 
the  leading  and  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity.  It  may  be  con- 
sidered as  the  Key.stone  in  the  solid  arch  of  revelation,  or  as  the 
centre  point  of  union,  where  "mercy  and  truth  have  met  together," 
and  where  "righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each  other."  At 
the  head  of  the  following  columns  stands  the  Key-stone,  which 
unites  and  supports  the  great  doctrines  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
the  left:  take  this  away  and  the  whole  building  falls  in  ruins  to 
the  ground;  or  in  other  words,  those  leading  principles  of  revela- 
tion will  be  found  utterly  inconsistent  with  each  other. 

THE  KEY-STONE. 

Christ  died  to  procure  a  gracious  probation  for  men — to  open  a 
way  through  which  they  might  all  be  saved-— to  make  the  throne 
of  grace  accessible,  by  making  it  just  for  God  to  grant  assistance, 
pardon,  sanctification  and  eternal  life  to  all  but  the  finally  impenr 
itent:— but  he  did  not  die  to  make  the  throne  of  justice  accessible 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  g^^ 

to  the  sinner,  by  discLarging  every  legal  demand  against  him,  and 
thus  authorizing  him  to  sue  out  his  liberty  and  claim  an  exemn- 
lion  from  all  penalties  as  his  lawful  right. 


FIRST    CLASS    OF    TRUTHS. 

1.  ChrisVs  death  ^ives  US  the 
privilege  to  come  boldly  to  the 
throne  of  grace. 

2.  Without  Christ  it  is  in  vain 
for  us  to  plead  {'or  pardon  before 
the  throne  of  grace. 

3.  It  is  unjust  for  men  to  be 
fcrgiven  without  a  Redeemer. 

4.  A  Redeemer  is  essential  to 
a,  sinner's  salvation,  [and] 

5.  Christ  is  the  gracious  Sa- 
viour of  mankind,  who  delights 
to  extend  mercy  unto  them,  and 
blot  out  their  transgressions. 

6.  Our  Works  of  righteousness 
cannot  procure  our  salvation; 
but  it  is  accomplished  by  the 
grace  of  God  i/n  Jesus  Christ. 

V.  Christ  has  actually  deli- 
vered all  mankind  from  the 
eurse  of  the  law.  [in  the  irrevo- 
cable form  in  which  it  stood 
without  a  Redeemer.] 

8.  Christ's  death  made  it  just 
for  God  to  grant  pardon  to  sin- 
ners. 

9.  Christ  tasted  death  for 
every  man,  and  bare  our  sins  in 
his  own  body  on  the  tree,  i  P. 
ii.  2^, 


SECO-NP    CLASS    OF   TRUTHS. 

1.  God^s  mercy,  in  the  grant 
of  pardon  gives  us  the  privilege 
to  coine  boldly  to  the  throne  of 

judgment. 

2.  Without  pardon  it  is  in 
vain  for  us  to  plead  the  merits  of 
Christ  before  the  throne  of  judg- 
ment. 

3.  It  is  unjust  for  men  to  be 
saved  through  a  Redeemer2f;iYA- 
out  obtaining  forgiveness. 

4.  God^s  mercy  in  the  grant  of 
pardon  is  equally  essential  to  a 
sinner's  salvation. 

5.  Christ  is  the  moral  govern- 
or of  mankind,  who  delights  to 
maintain  impartialjustice  among 
them,  and  finally  to  judge  and 
reward  them  according  to  their 
works. 

6.  Without  works  of  right- 
eousness, the  grace  of  God  in 
Jesus  Christ  will  not  save  any 
man. 

7.  No  man  is  actually  deli- 
vered from  the  curse  of  the  law 
[in  its  revocable  form  through  a 
Redeemer]  till  he  obtains  the 
forgiveness  of  his  sins. 

8.  The  gran*  q/'j7arrfon  makes 
it  just  for  sinners  to  be  admit* 
ted  into  heaven. 

9.  Every  man  shall  hear  his 
own  burden.  Every  man  shall 
give  account  of  himself  to  God. 
Gal.  vi.  5,  Rom.  xiv.  12. 


350  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

10.  The  Lord  is  not  strict  or  10.  The  Lord  is  of  purer 
severe  to  mark  what  is  done  a-  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity:  he 
miss;  but  is  long  suffering  to  us  will  by  no  means  clear  the 
ward,  not  willing  that  any  guilty;  but  will  bring  every 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  work  into  judgment,  with  eve- 
come  to  repentance,  ry  secret  thing,   whether  it  be 

good,  or  whether  it  be  evil. 

As  all  those  scripture  doctrines  are  reconciled  by  the  principle 
above  mentioned,  so  are  many  obscure  passages  made  clear, 
which  upon  the  opposite  system  are  either  contradictory  or  unin- 
telligible. 

How  innumerable  are  the  instances,  for  example,  in  which  we 
find  the  apostles  declaring  that  good  ivorks  are  so  essential  to  our 
salvation,  that  without  them  we  shall  never  be  admitted  through 
the  gates  into  the  city;  and  yet  assuring  us  it  is  a  dangerous  delu- 
sion for  any  man  to  expect  salvation  by  the  works  of  the  law? — 
Now  unless  we  take  our  stand  upon  some  principle  which  will 
unite  those  scriptures,  we  may  dispute  forever,  and  come  no  near- 
er to  a  conclusion:  each  disputant  will  have  many  passages  on  his 
side,  and  while  we  neglect  a  reconciling  principle,  our  controver- 
sy does  nothing  but  afford  a  presumption  to  infidels,  that  the  bible 
is  at  war  with  itself,  and  can  never  be  brought  to  support  any  re- 
gular and  consistent  system  of  theology. 

AVhenee  is  it  that  St.  Paul  sometimes  tells  us,  our  salvation  is 
of  grace,  through  faith,  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast; 
and  at  other  times,  exhorts  us  to  work  out  our  own  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling?  The  solution  is  easy.  If  we  attempt  to  work 
ourselves  to  the  throne  of  justice,  to  merit  salvation,  or  obtain  it 
as  a  legal  right,  our  works  are  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of 
God;  but  if  we,  through  divine  assistance,  work  in  order  to  ap-. 
proach  the  throne  of  grace,  made  accessible  by  the  blood  of  Jesus, 
our  labour  shall  not  be  in  vain  in  the  Lord.  If  works  could  take  us 
to  the  throne  of  justice  for  deliverance,  they  would  not  obtain  our 
salvation  through  grace,  but  of  debt:  those,  on  the  contrary,  which 
conduct  us  to  the  throne  of  grace,  would  not  obtain  our  salvation 
as  a  debt,  but  as  a  voluntary  act  of  divine  compassion.  For  after 
we  approach  the  throne  of  grace,  God  is  not  bound  to  receive  us, 
as  the  Antinomian  atonement  supposes,  only  as  he  has  bound  him- 
self by  promise,  from  the  free  grace  or  benevolence  of  his  nature. 

Thus  the  apostle  argues:  Now  to  hiin  that  worketh  [in  order 
t©  approach  the  throne  of  justice]  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  251 

grace,  but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh  not  [to  obtain  a  le- 
gal exoneration  from  the  curse]  but  believeth  [with  the  heart 
unto  righteousness]  on  him  that  justifieth  [or  forgiveth]  the  un- 
godly, his  faith  is  accounted  for  righteousness.  His  faith,  work- 
ing by  love,  and  including  a  proper  submission  to  the  divine  go- 
vernment, is  accounted  for,  or  through  an  act  of  goodness  is  ac- 
cepted instead  of  perfect  righteousness:  therefore,  the  apostle 
concludes  the  reward  is  not  of  debt,  but  of  grace:  why  so.''  because 
it  was  pure  clemency  or  grace  that  accepted  him  upon  the  terms 
of  believing.  Had  he  come  with  a  perfect  righteousness  either 
inherent  or  imputed,  that  righteousness  alone  would  be  a  com- 
plete ground  of  his  justification,  and  there  would  be  no  truth  in 
saying  either  that  faith  was  accounted  for  righteousness,  or  that  it 
would  be  any  act  of  grace  to  accept  him  in  this  way,  because  his 
spotless  righteousness  would  give  him  an  unquestionable  right  to 
demand  deliverance  as  a  debt.     Rom.  iv.  4. 

The  apostle  says  again,  "Even  so  then  at  this  present  time  also 
there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  And  if  by 
grace,  then  is  it  no  more  of  works;  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace. 
But  if  it  be  of  works,  then  is  it  no  more  grace,  otherwise  work  is 
no  more  work.  What  then?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which 
he  seeketh  for;  but  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were 
blinded."  Rom.  xi.  5,  6. 

Here  is  a  very  convincing  argument  in  support  of  the  principle 
he  had  before  advanced;  namely,  that  there  is  no  medium  between 
looking  for  a  free  pardon  from  God's  benignity  and  expecting  to  re- 
ceive salvation  as  a  debt.  He  proves  that  those  w  ho  deny  this  con- 
elusion  are  involved  in  palpable  contradictions.  For,  says  he,  if 
this  deliverance  or  salvation  is  bestowed  by  grace,  or  favour,  then 
it  is  not  received  upon  the  ground  of  a  legal  righteousness  as  a 
debt,  for  this  would  prove  that  there  was  no  benevolence  or  grace 
in  the  matter.  Deny  this,  and  you  say  grace  is  no  more  grace;  that 
is,  that  it  is  grace  and  not  grace — a  favour  and  tlie  mere  payment 
of  a  debt,  at  the  same  time..  But  if  it  be  of  works,  or  a  legal  righte- 
ousness exactly  answerable  to  every  demand  of  the  law,  then  is  it 
no  more  of  grace,  because  it  is  obtained  upon  principles  of  inflexi- 
ble justice,  and  there  is  no  favour  bestowed  in  only  rendering  that 
which  is  proportional  to  your  legal  right.  Will  you  deny  this,  and 
say  salvation  may  be  received  upon  the  ground  of  tliis  legal  right- 
eousness, and  yet  be  of  grace.''  if  so,  you  say  work  is  no  more  work, 
that  is,  thai  it  is  received  upon  the  ground  of  a  just  or  legal  de- 
mand, and  not  received  upon  this  ground  at  the  same  time.  These 


•«33  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

manifest  contradictions  are  unavoidable  upon  any  other  princi- 
ple but  that  which  is  defended  in  these  pages,  and  as  St  Paul 
pointed  out  these  consequences  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  it  is 
a  little  remarkable  that  his  Mritings  should  be  considered  friend- 
ly to  Antinomianism:  more  so,  that  this  epistle  should  be  so  un* 
derstood;  and  more  still  that  this  very  text  should  be  thought 
a  main  pillar  of  predestinarian  or  imputed  righteousness. 

He  assures  them  that  no  man  will  receive  salvation  who  expects 
it  as  debt,  because  God's  method  of  saving  sinners  is  ir  a  way  of 
mercy.  Christ  is  his  elect  or  chosen  one,  and  whoever  receives 
him  by  faith,  and  receives  pardon  in  his  name,  is  elected,  chosen^ 
or  approved  of  God  in  Christ,  as  a  child  of  God  and  an  heir  ac- 
cording to  the  promise.  What  then?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that 
which  he  seeketh  for;  [because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith,  but  by 
the  works  of  the  law.  Chap.  ix.  32.]  but  the  election  hath  obtain- 
ad  it,  [because  they  sought  it  not  as  a  debt  but  as  humble  suppli- 
ants; they  received  it  as  an  act  of  grace,  freely  vouchsafed  to  all 
that  will  receive  it  in  this  way,]  and  the  rest  were  blinded. 
That  is,  they  were  blinded  with  the  vain  delusion  which  the  apos- 
tle is  here  labouring  to  remove,  and  this  was  the  reason  they  re- 
ceived not  that  which  they  sought  after.  Had  they  abandoned 
the  notion  of  a  legal  righteousness  as  the  ground  of  their  justifica- 
tion, and  received  pardon  from  the  mercy  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ, 
they  too  w  ould  have  been  a  part  of  the  election  who  hath  obtained 
it;  but  they  hardened  themselves  in  prejudice  against  the  truth^ 
and  of  course  loere  blinded;  because  he  that  runs  away  from 
the  light  must  necessarily  walk  in  darkness,  and  "  this  is  the  con- 
demnation that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  dark- 
ness rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  are  evil." 

Another  scripture,  worthy  of  particular  notice,  we  find  in  Acfjs 
iv.  27.  "  For  of  a  truth  against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom  thou 
hast  anointed,  both  Herod  aud  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles, 
and  the  people  of  Israel,  were  gathered  together,  for  to  do  what- 
soever thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  determined  before  to  be  doue.'^ 
Again:  "  Him  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and 
fore-knowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have 
crucified  and  slain."  Acts  ii.  23. 

From  these  passages  we  learn  the  following  particulars;  1. 
That  God  from  his  fore-knowledge  of  man's  apostacy,  had  de- 
termined, according  to  his  counsel  or  w  isdom,  that  certain  things 
should  be  done.  2.  That  the  Lord  Jesus  was  appointed  to  exe- 
4ttte  his  counsel  or  determination.     3.  That  the  Jews  aud  Gen- 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  353 

tiles,  though  their  malice  was  over-ruled,  to  subserve  the  purpo« 
ses  of  the  Divine  wisdom,  were  very  wicked  in  taking  and  cruci- 
fying the  Redeemer. 

1.  Our  Heavenly  Father  determined,  according  to  the  counsel, 
or  wise  purpose  of  his  own  will,  that  all  things  should  be  done 
that  were  necessary  for  the  redemption  of  mankind. 

2.  The  Son  of  God  was  anointed,  or  set  apart  to  execute  this 
gracious  determination,  and  to  do  every  thing  that  was  necessary 
to  its  accoL'^plishment.  I  hope  no  person  will  say  the  Jews  were 
appointed  to  do  whatsoever  God's  hand  and  council  determined  he* 
fore  to  be  done.  This  were  to  suppose  God  commissioned  them  to 
perform  the  work  of  our  redemption.  If  any  shall  declare  that  it 
was  necessary  for  the  Jews  to  crucify  the  Lord  of  Glory,  they  must 
suppose  those  sinners  did  at  least  a  part  of  the  work  that  was  es- 
sential to  the  redemption  and  salvation  of  mankind,  without  whose 
assistance  the  work  would  not  have  been  complete!  God  says  he 
has  no  need  of  the  sinful  man:  our  Saviour  says:  No  man  taketh  my 
life  from  me;  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to 
take  it  again:  while  the  prophet  in  his  name  declares,  I  have 
trodden  the  wine-press  alone,  and  of  the  people  there  was  none 
with  me:  I  looked,  and  there  was  none  to  help;  therefore  mine  own 
arm  brought  salvation  unto  me.     Isaiah  Ixiii.  3,5. 

3.  It  follows,  that  neither  the  treachery  of  Judas,  nor  the  malice 
of  Jews  or  Gentiles  was  necessary;  but  that  their  crime  was  enor- 
mous in  arresting  the  Redeemer,  and  nailing  him,  6?/  their  wicked 
hands,  to  the  cross.  He  was  innocent,  and  did  not  deserve  to  suf- 
fer: and  though  he  had  a  right  to  suiter,  yet  this  right  was  in  him- 
self alone,  and  no  mortal  had  any  more  authority  over  his  life 
than  over  the  life  of  angels. 

Some  pretend  that  the  conduct  of  those  men  was  unavoidable, 
because  their  actions  were  fixed  by  an  immutable  decree;  but  if 
God  predestinated  their  wickedness,  that  decree  resulted  from  his 
goodness  or  justice,  or  else  it  was  unjust:  if  from  the  former,  the 
thing  which  the  Jews  did  was  perfectly  just  and  good,  because  it 
was  the  necessary  eftect  of  a  decree  that  proceeded  from  those  at- 
tributes. I  hope  nobody  will  say  the  decree  arises  from  goodness, 
and  yet  the  thing  is  not  good  which  it  produces.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  say  the  decree  was  unjust,  we  charge  God  >vith  malevo- 
lence, and  contradict  the  most  essential  principles  of  revelation. 

I  am  aware  of  the  sophistical  evasion  often  used  to  conceal  the 
force  of  this  conclusion:  It  has  been  said,  "Though  God  decrees 
all  the  actions  of  men,  yet  he  does  not  decree  the  sitifulness  of  their 
Kk 


35i>  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

actions,  which  consists  in  the  principle  or  motive  that  influences 
the  agent."  In  answer  to  this,  we  would  inquire  whether  it  be 
possible  for  men  to  perform  all  their  wicked  actions  from  good 
motives,  or  not?  If  it  is  possible,  it  plainly  follows,  that  men 
might  so  perform  them,  and  consequently,  murder,  adultery,  theft 
and  blasphemy  might  prevail  as  they  now  do,  nnd  yet  there  should 
be  no  sin  in  the  world!  if  it  is  not  possible,  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence is,  that  there  are  many  actions  that  cannot  be  performed 
by  an  intelligent  being,  but  from  bad  motives,  and  of  course  God 
must  predestinate  the  motives  which  influence  them,  in  order  to 
secure  or  bring  to  pass  their  wicked  actions. 

Here  stands  an  innocent  man,  we  will  suppose;  who  never  did 
me  an  injury:  I  have  no  right  to  take  away  his  life.  Would  it  be 
possible  for  me  intentionally  to  murder  this  man  with  a  good  mo- 
tive or  uot.^  I  have  a  conviction  that  I  ought  not  to  kill  him;  to  say  I 
might  have  a  good  motive  in  doing  what  1  feel  I  ought  not  to  do,  is 
a  contradiction,  and  confounds  the  distinction  between  right  and 
wrong.  If  I  have  a  conviction  that  it  is  wrong,  it  is  impossible  for 
me  to  do  it  without  intending  to  do  wrong:  the  action  cannot  be 
done  with  the  consent  of  my  will,  withoutarising  from  this  wrong 
intention:  consequently,  if  I  should  be  moved  to  do  it  by  the  ir- 
resistible influence  of  a  secret  decree,  the  evil  intention  is  no  less 
predestinated  than  the  action  which  arises  from  it.  Other  argu- 
ments might  be  ottered  against  the  pitiful  sophistry  here  opposed; 
but  it  is  so  futile  and  ridiculous  that  it  deserves  no  farther  isves-- 
tigation. 

The  plain  sense  of  the  passage  above  quoted  (and  the  literasl 
meaning  of  the  original,  according  to  Mr.  Fletcher)  is  this:  "for  of 
a  truth,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles,  and 
the  people  of  Israel,  where  gathered  together  against  thy  Holy 
Child  Jesus,  Avhom  thou  hast  anointed  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand 
and  thy  counsel  determined  before  to  be  done.  It  was  God's  deter- 
minate counsel  that  Christ  should  die  for  mankind,  and  fore-know- 
ing the  wicked  disposition  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  people  of  Israel, 
he  determined  not  to  rescue  the  Saviour  by  miraculous  power,  but 
deliver  him  up  to  their  fury.  "Him,  being  delivered  by  the  deter- 
minate counsel  and  fore-knowledge  ©f  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by 
wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain."  But  if  their  wickedness 
was  as  much  the  object  of  his  determinate  counsel  as  the  Savi- 
onr*s  death,  (which  might  have  been  accomplished  by  a  flash  of 
lightening  or  by  some  other  means)  what  was  the  object  of  his 
forcrknowledge?  and  why  was  the  knowledge  distinguished  from 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  255 

the  determination,  if  they  both  mean  the  same  thing?  It  is  evident 
his  determination  related  to  what  the  Redeemer  was  to  do  and 
sufter  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  and  his  fore-knowledge  to  the 
disposition  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  take  away  his  life.  He  could 
have  prevented  them  from  crucifying  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  be- 
cause he  fore-knew  their  intentions;  but  he  had  determined  that 
the  Saviour  should  die,  and  therefore  did  not  hinder  them  by  su- 
perior power,  but  delivei'ed  him  up  to  the  vengeance  of  their  wic- 
ked hands. 

Many  other  passages  might  be  mentioned,  and  cleared  up,  by 
bringing  them  to  a  conformity  with  the  leading  principles  of  reve- 
lation, which  have  often  been  unjustly  pressed  into  the  service  of 
reprobation;  but  as  they  have  been  examined  by  Mr  Fletcher,  and 
by  other  able  hands,  we  will  omit  them  at  present,  and  confine 
ourselves  to  those  which  relate  immediately  to  the  subject  of 
atonement. 

"Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,"  says  St. 
Paul,  "being  made  a  curse  for  us:  for  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every 
one  thathangeth  on  a  tree."  Gal.  iii.  13. 

From  this  it  hath  been  concluded  that  Christ  has  removed  the 
whole  curse  or  penalty  of  the  law  from  his  elect,  by  enduring  it  in 
(heir  place.  But  it  is  evident  from  the  context,  and  from  other 
passages,  that  the  apostle's  meaning  in  this  text  accords  perfectly 
with  our  view  of  the  subject. 

He  labours  in  this  epistle,  as  well  as  in  that  to  the  Romans,  to 
convince  the  Jews,  and  those  whom  they  had  corrupted,  that  they 
can  never  be  justified  by  a  legal  righteoasness,  but  must  submit  to 
receive  salvation  through  Christ  in  a  way  of  mercy.  "For  as  many 
as  are  of  the  w  orks  of  the  law,"  says  he,  (verse  10)  "are  under 
the  curse:  for  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not 
in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them." 
The  law  demanded  universal  obedience,  made  no  provision  for  de- 
ficiency, and  admitted  of  no  forgiveness:  consequently  one  trans- 
gression would  sink  the  simier  beyond  the  possibility  of  deliverance 
upon  principles  of  law.  This  was  the  curse:  and  it  is  evident  that 
all  who  rejected  the  otters  of  mercy,  and  attempted  to  come  out  clear 
without  receiving  pardon,  were  under  the  curse,  which  they  never 
could  remove.  Christ  has  delivered  us  from  this  curse  of  the  laAV 
because  through  his  atonement  sin  may  now  be  forgiven,  which  it 
could  not  be  before  he  demonstrated  God's  righteousness,  and  thus 
removed  the  inexorable  barrier,  or  curse,  which  cut  off  all  access 
to  mercy,  and  made  the  way  to  heaven  impassable. 


iS56  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

But  as  it  is  said  Christ  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  many  have  sup- 
posed this  can  have  no  meaning,  unless  it  mean  that  he  became 
guilty*  by  imputation,  and  endured  the  nhole  penalty  as  a  cri- 
minal in  our  place.  The  infliction  of  a  curse,  in  scripture,  has 
two  meanings:  1.  it  means  punishing  a  sinner  according  to  what 
he  deserves:  2.  It  means  an  act  of  God,  M'hereby  his  hatred  of  sin 
is  manifested.  The  former  sense  will  be  readily  admitted;  and 
that  the  latter  is  true,  and  is  the  only  sense  in  which  a  curse  was 
ever  inflicted  on  the  Lord  Jesus,  can  be  proved,  1  hope,  to  the  sa- 
tisfaction of  all  that  believe  the  scripture. 

"And  the  Lord  Gfod  said  unto  the  serpent,  because  thou  hast 
done  this,  thou  art  cursed  above  all  cattle,  and  above  every 
beast  of  the  field: — and  unto  Adam  he  said;  because  thou  hast 
hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten  of  the  tree,  of 
which  I  commanded  thee,  saying,  thou  shall  not  eat  of  it;  cursed 
is  the  ground  for  thy  sake;  in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the 
days  of  thy  life:  thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to 
thee;  and  thou  shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field."— Gen.  iii.  14, 17. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  ground,  as  well  as  the  beasts  of  the 
earth  and  the  fowls  of  heaven  were  cursed,  not  as  criminals  suf- 
fering the  pcnaity  ^'  the  law;  but  they  were  brought  under  the  ef- 
fects of  sin,  as  so  many  standing  monuments  of  God's  displeasure 
against  it.  In  like  manner,  but  far  more  conspicuously,  the  Lord 
Jesus  was  made  under  the  law,  or  submitted  to  suffer  the  dread- 
ful effects  of  sin,  not  as  a  criminal,  but  as  a  glorious  monument  of 
God's  merciful  kindness  on  the  one  hand  and  of  his  hatred 
against  moral  evil  on  the  other.  As  God  said  to  Adam  "cursed  is 
the  ground  for  thy  sake,"  so  he  may  say  to  guilty  creatures,  "The 
innocent  Redeemer  has  been  made  a  curse  for  your  sakes:"  that  is, 
^'he  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross;"  and 
therefore  it  may  be  very  properly  said,  "he  was  made  a  curse  for 
you,  because  it  is  written  cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree." 

The  apostle  John  saith,  «If  we  confess  our  sins,  God  is  faithful 
and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unright- 
eousness. 1  John  i.  9.  From  this  passage  we  learn,  (1.)  that  God 
is  faithful,  or  true  to  his  gracious  promise,  that  is,  he  has  pledged 
his  goodness,  to  forgive  us  our  sins:  (2.)  In  consequence  of  redemp- 
tion this  act  of  pardon  is  perfectly  just  also:  that  is,  it  violates  the 

*  Sec  a  quotation  from  Luther. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  257 

right  of  none:  not  that  justice  dcmauds  it  at  the  hand  of  God, so  that 
he  cannot  withhold  it  without  being  unjust,  for  if  so,  there  would 
be  neither  goodness  nor  forgiveness  in  the  matter;  but  this  act  of 
clemeney  is  perfectly  consistent  with  justice,  through  llie  mediation 
of  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  "magnified  the  law  and  made  it  honour- 
able." We  learn  (3.)  that  Godis  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins,  if  we  confess  them:  a  clear  proof  that  the  penalty  was  not  le- 
gally discharged  by  the  death  of  Christ,  otherwise  we  should  be 
free  upon  principles  of  law,  whether  we  made  confession  or  not. 
This  text  affords  incontrovertable  evidence,  that  Christ  died  to 
make  it  just  for  God  to  forgive  sins  upon  certain  conditions:  if  we 
confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and 
to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness.  Had  not  the  Redeemer  in- 
terposed in  our  favour  it  would  not  have  been  just,  that  is,  consis- 
tent with  the  general  rights  of  the  creation,  for  either  the  justify- 
ing or  sanctifying  grace  of  God  to  be  extended  to  his  rebellious 
creatures:  but  it  has  become  just,  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  divine  clemency  to  bestow  upon  penitent 
believing  sinners,  every  thing  that  is  necessary  to  their  eternal 
happiness  in  heaven. 

Let  us  close  this  section  by  a  few  remarks  upon  that  famous  pas- 
sage of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans:  "For  all  have  sinned,  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God:  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare 
his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through 
the  forbearance  of  God;  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time,  his  right- 
eousness; that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  ^him  which  be- 
lieveth  in  Jesus."  Rom.  iii.  23,  2-i. 

To  understand  this  important  passage,  three  terms  of  it  are  to 
he  explained: — coming  short  of  the  glory  of  God— justification— 
and  propitiation. 

1.  God  is  glorified,  or  his  glorious  attributes  are  displayed,  by 
means  of  his  moral  law,'  as  has  been  before  proved:  while  all  crea- 
tures continued  upright,  his  glory  shone  forth  like  the  sun  in  the 
midst  of  heaven;  but  when  the  dark  cloud  of  moral  evil  arose,  the 
beams  of  divine  glory  were  obstructed;  the  proof  of  God's  spotless 
purity  was  obscured  by  those  who  sinned  and  came  short  of  his 
glory:  and  some  new  method  must  now  be  taken  to  declare  his 
righteousness,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  continue  obedient,  and  who 
have  a  right  to  such  clear  views  of  truth  as  shall  guard  them  against 
m  danger:  to  secure  this  right  God  must  di|pel  the  cloud  of  eviJ 


35S  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

by  a  demonstration  of  his  righteousness:  if  no  other  method  can  be 
devised,  this  must  be  done  by  the  damnation  of  every  criminal;  but 
if  a  Saviour  can  accomplish  these  ends  of  government  in  behalf  of 
the  guilty,  then  it  will  become  just  for  mercy  to  forgive  them,  and 
restore  to  them  the  forfeited  blessing  of  holiness  and  salvation. 
Let  us  consider 

1.  The  meaning  of  justification.  This  term,  if  I  mistake  not,  has 
four  meanings  in  scripture:  (1.)  it  means  to  excuse  or  vindicate,  iu 
which  sense  God  never  justifies  a  sinner:  He  that  justifieth  the 
wicked,  and  he  that  condemneth  the  just,  even  they  both  are 
abomination  to  the  Lord.  Prov.  xvii.  15. 

3.  It  simply  signifies  forgiveness,  in  vvhicli  sense  it  is  to  be  ta- 
ken in  the  passage  under  present  consideration,  and  iu  many  other. 
All  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things  [that  is  from  all  their 
sins]  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses. 
Acts  xiii.  39. 

3.  It  is  sometimes  taken  in  an  enlarged  i>ense  as  including  sane- 
tification  or  the  renewing  of  our  minds,  as  well  as  the  pardon  of 
our  transgressions.  "AVhom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified: 
that  is,  whom  he  pardoned,  renewed, and  qualified  for  glory,  them 
he  actually  glorified."  Rom.  viii.  38. 

4.  It  means  to  declare  or  acknowledge  a  person  to  be  truly 
righteous.    In  proof  of  this,  see  Matt.  xii.  37.  James  ii.  21,  24,  25. 

3  Consider  we  next  the  meaning  of  propitiation:  propitious 
signifies  favourable  or  kind:  propitiousness,  is  favourableness, 
kindness.  Propitiate,  to  induce  to  favour,  to  conciliate.  Propi- 
tiation, the  act  of  making  propitious,  the  atonement,  the  oftering 
by  which  propitiousness  is  obtained. — See  Walker'' s  dictionary. 

God  could  not  be  kind  or  propitious  to  man  in  opposition  to  the 
principles  of  his  government,  and  the  general  welfare,  because 
such  partiality  is  contrary  to  his  perfections:  his  law  must  be  mag- 
nified, and  the  righteousness  or  purity  of  his  nature  must  be  de- 
monstrated: this  was  done  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  this 
atonement  he  was  propitiated,  or  influenced  to  extend  favour,  kind- 
ness or  mercy  to  his  fallen  and  guilty  creatures. 

"For  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God."  [they 
have  obscured  the  evidence  of  his  glorious  attributes  by  introdu- 
cing moral  evil.]  Being  justified  [or  forgiven]  "freely  by  his  grace 
through  the  redemption  [or  display  of  his  glory]  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  [to  make  it 
accord  with  the  nature  of  God  to  show  favour  to  all  men  who  m  ill 
receive  it]  through  faith  in  his  blood,  [being  commissioned]  to  de- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  239 

dare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  [to 
prove  clearly  that  he  is  righteous,  and  will  never  show  mercy  in  a 
way  that  shall  encourage  sin,  though  the  sentence  of  the  law  is 
suspended]  through  the  forbearance  of  God  [whose  goodness  does 
every  thing  to  save  us  that  can  be  done  without  departing  from 
the  general  welfare.  To  declare,  I  say,  [or  as  the  original  means 
to  demonstrate]  at  this  time,  his  righteousness,  that  God  might  be 
just  [that  he  might  secure  the  rights  of  all  his  children,  in  his  me- 
thod of  showing  mercy,  or  of  becoftiiug]  the  justifier  of  him  which 
helieveth  in  Jesus." 

There  is  not,  perhaps,  a  more  particular  account  of  the  design 
of  our  Saviour's  coming,  in  all  the  scriptures,  or  a  more  copious 
elucidation  of  the  interesting  truths  of  salvation  through  Jesus 
Christ,  than  this  passage  affords  us.  But  upon  the  Autiuomian 
hypothesis,  the  subject  is  involved  in  darkness,  and  must  be  made 
to  run  thus:  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  [that 
is,  to  have  all  the  sins  of  the  elect  imputed  to  him,  and  suffer  the 
whole  vengeance  due  to  them]  that  God  might  be  just  in  being 
bound  by  his  justice,  to  render  the  just  claim,  which  he  has  enabled 
and  authorised  his  ransomed  ones  to  demand  as  their  right. 


SECTION  X, 

The  plain  scripture  testimony,  concerning  redemption,  reconciled 
with  the  metaphors  which  represent  it  as  a  purchase. 

Some  appear  to  imagine  that  Christ's  death  had  merit  enough, 
or  that  he  wrought  out  righteousness  enough  for  all  the  world;  but 
that  the  particular  part  which  is  intended  for  me,  or  another  sin- 
ner is  withheld  till  we  believe  the  gospel:  when  we  do  this  it  is 
made  over  to  us;  but  if  we  live  and  die  unbelievers,  it  is  not  made 
over,  and  what  becomes  of  it  I  have  never  been  informed.  But 
whether  it  be  reserved  for  the  benefit  of  the  spirits  in  prison,  or 
be  applied  to  some  other  unknown  use  in  heaven,  or  whatever 
else  we  may  suppose,  it  removes  not  the  difficulty  respecting  our 
ueed  of  forgiveness. 

For  if  Christ  has  discharged  all  penalties,  and  reserves  hii 
merit  or  righteousness  in  this  conditional  way,  does  God  forgive  a. 


26a  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

sinner  before  this  merit  is  made  over  to  liim,  or  afterwards?  If  be- 
fore, he  does  not  surely  need  this  legal  discharge  l»y  imputation, 
because  he  has  received  a  gracious  discharge  already;  if  not  till 
afterwards,  then  he  does  not  need  pardon,  because  the  legal  atone- 
ment is  made  over  to  him,  and  nothing  more  is  wanting  for  his 
complete  justification. 

It  is  agreed,  on  all  sides,  that  God  pardons  sinners  in  conse- 
quence of  what  Christ  has  done  and  sutTered  for  them:  it  is  equal- 
ly true,  that  he  pardons  none  against  whom  there  is  no  penal  de- 
mand, because  they  do  not  need  it:  consequently  Christ's  death 
does  not  remove  the  i)cualty  from  any  sinner,  but  only  opens  the 
way  for  divine  mercy,  to  remove  it  by  a  gracious  act  of  forgive- 
ness. 1.  God  pardons  none  but  in  consequence  of  the  merits  of 
Christ:  2.  He  pardons  none  but  those  w  ho  stand  in  need  of  it: — 
31  None  stand  in  need  of  it  against  whom  there  is  no  penal  de- 
mand; it  therefore  follows:  4.  That  the  death  of  Christ  does  not 
remove  the  penalty,  but  only  opens  the  way  for  an  act  of  mercy  to 
remove  it.  The  opposite  system,  on  the  contrary,  is  founded  on 
the  principle  that  Christ  died,  not  that  sinners  might  obtain  for- 
giveness, but  that  they  might  be  raised  above  the  want  of  it. 

And  is  this  the  view  of  redemption  which  we  learn  from  the  ora- 
cles of  God.^  It  is  not.  "For  thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved 
Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory — for  what?  that  re- 
pentance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name 
among  all  nations."     Luke  xxiv.  46. 

"The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesns,  whom  ye  slew,  and 
hanged  on  a  tree:  him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand — for 
what?  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins." — 
Acts  V.  30. 

"In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood—- and  what  is 
that  redemption?  tha  forgiveness  oi' siiis,  according  to  the  riches 
of  his  grace."     Eph.  i.  7.  and  Col,  i.  14. 

"Be  it  known  unto  you,  therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that 
through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins." — 
Acts  xiii.  38. 

"  We  have  a  great  high  priest  that  is  passed  into  the  heavens, 
Jesus  the  Son  of  God — and  what  inference  doth  this  aftord?  Let 
us  therefore  come  boldly  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  ob- 
tain mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need."  Heb.  iv.  14,16. 

How  has  he  made  this  throne  of  grace  accessible?  "The  Lord 
is  well  pleased  for  his  righteousness  sake:  he  will  magnify  the 
law  and  mak«  it  honourable.     To  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time,  liis 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  261 

righteousness,  that  God  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him 
which  believeth  in  JesHS." — Isa.  xlii.  2i.  Rom.  iii.  26. 

These  plain  scriptures  give  us  a  proper  and  just  view  of  re- 
demption, and  their  evidence  is  not  to  be  overturned  by  metaphor- 
ical  passages,  which   have  been  often  abused  and  misapplied 

Let  us  notice  some  of  the  passages  which  have  been  thought 
friendly  to  the  legal  atonement  and  imputation,  defended  by  our 
mistaken  opposers. 

St.  Paul  saith,  "He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew 
no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."— 
2  Cor.  V.  21. 

This  must  mean,  either  that  Christ  was  really  made  a  sinner,  or 
that  he  was  made  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  If  our  sins  were  positively 
transferred  from  us  to  Christ,  whereby  he  was  properly  constitut- 
ed a  sinner,  we  were  thereby  really  constituted  innocent,  and  can 
justly  demand  an  exemption  from  all  penalties.  But  the  apostle 
explains  himself  in  another  place,  and  tells  us,  "This  man,  after 
he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  fur  sin,  forever  sat  down  on  the  right 
hand  of  God." — Heb.  x.  12.  Sacrifice  for  sin  signifies  to  make 
atonement  or  satisfaction  for  it:  accordingly  Christ  offered  satis- 
faction to  God,  as  has  been  sufficiently  explained  already. 

Much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  word  redeem,  which  often 
occurs  in  the  scriptures;  but  according  to  St.  Paul,  it  sometimes 
means  nothing  more  than  opening  a  new  and  living  way  to  a 
throne  of  grace:  having  redemption  through  his  blood,  says  he,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace. 

It  often  means  nothing  more  than  deliverance  from  bondage,  by 
the  power  of  God:  "Wherefore  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I 
am  the  Lord,  and  I  will  bring  you  out  from  under  the  burdens  of 
the  Egyptians,  and  I  will  rid  you  out  of  their  bondage;  and  1  will 
redeem  you  with  a  stretched-out  arm,  and  with  great  judgment." — 
Exod.  vi.  6.  "But  because  the  Lord  loved  you,  and  because  he 
would  keep  the  oath  which  he  had  sworn  unto  your  fathers,  hath 
the  Lord  brought  you  out- with  a  mighty  hand,  and  redeemed  you 
out  of  the  house  of  bond-men,  from  the  hand  of  Pharoali,  king  of 
Egypt." — Deut.  vii.  8. 

Thus  it  is  plain  that  redemption,  in  these  places,  means  deli- 
verance, and  so  do  those  passages  which  speak  of  our  being  re- 
deemed from  our  vain  conversation — from  sin — from  the  curse  of 
the  law — and  that  we  wait  for  the  adoption",  to  wit,  the  redemption 
of  oxir  bodies.  To  suppose  the  word  redeem,  in  these  places,  means 
a  price  literally  paid  down,  as  an  equivalent  for  a  thing  purchas- 
L  1 


262  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ed,  is  to  suppose  the  Lord  Jesus  paid  a  price  to  our  vain  conversa- 
tion, to  our  sins,  to  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  to  the  grave! 

Our  redemption  by  Christ,  I  grant,  is  sometimes,  in  a  metaphor- 
ical way,  represented  as  a pwrcAfflSc:  St.  PauUelfs  the  Corinth- 
ians, Ye  are  not  your  own,  for  ye  are  bought  ivith  a  pricey  and  the 
apostle  Peter  says,  "Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  re- 
deemed with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain 
conversation,  received  by  tradition  from  your  fathers;  but  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a 
pure  heart  fervently." — 1  Cor.  vi.  20.  1  Pet.  i.  18. 

These  metaphors  are  sufficient,  it  may  perhaps  be  thought,  to 
support  the  whole  weight  of  Antinomian  conclusions.  It  is  evident, 
will  they  say,  that  Christ  has  bought  his  people,  by  paying  the 
full  price  of  justice  which  their  sins  demanded;  therefore,  if  any 
soul  should  be  lost  for  whom  he  shed  his  blood,  he  is  unjustly  de- 
frauded of  his  property.  Tins  conclusion,  I  grant,  is  incontro- 
vertible, if  the  principle  on  which  it  rests  be  really  true,  that  Jesus 
Christ  entered  into  a  literal  contract,  and  bought  souls  with  his 
blood,  just  as  a  man  purchases  a  piece  of  property  with  his  money. 

Let  us  admit  for  a  moment,  that  such  scriptures  are  to  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  a  literal  contract:  the  conclusion  very  naturally  fol- 
lows, that  Jesus  Christ  bought  a  certain  number  of  souls,  and 
paid  such  a  price  as  he  ought  in  justice  to  pay,  in  order  to  be  le- 
gally entitled  to  the  property  he  had  purchased;  if  he  died  for  a 
part  of  mankind,  that  part  are  his  forever;  if  he  died  for  all,  then 
not  an  individual  of  the  human  race  can  be  taken  from  him  with- 
out a  violation  of  justice.  Meantime,  it  remains  for  us  to  inquire 
from  whom  did  he  buy  those  souls,  and  what  price  did  he  pay.''  As 
to  the  price,  St.  Peter,  tells  it  was  not  silver  or  gold,  but  the  pre- 
cious blood  of  Christ. — 1  Pet.  i.  18, 19. 

But  who  was  the  other  party  in  this  contract,  that  disposed  of 
such  a  number  of  souls,  and  received  a  certain  quantity  of  blood 
inpayment, — such  a  quantity  as  vvas  equivalent  to  the  value  of 
his  property.**  Did  our  Holy  Redeemer  pay  his  blood  to  the  devil, 
to  the  curse  of  the  law,  to  our  vain  conversation,  or  to  the  grave? 
Or  did  he  purchase  us  from  the  Father.'*  If  so,  the  Father  has  no 
more  right  in  us  now,  because  he  has  sold  us,  aud  received  the 
price  of  justice,  equivalant  to  the  property  disposed  of!  And  if  we 
say  he  bought  us  for  the  Father,  it  seems  not  a  little  puzzling  to 
ascertain  how  he  lost  his  original  right  in  us.  Had  he  sold  us  on 
some  former  occasion,  or  did  the  devil  claim  us  as  his  property  by 
right  of  war?  These  questions  may  perhaps  be  said  to  be  replete 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  268 

with  blasphemy;  but  I  must  appeal  to  common  sense,  and  ask  the 
intelligent  reader,  if  they  do  not  naturally  arise  from  the  principle 
that  Jesus  Christ  actually  bought  the  souls  of  men,  and  paid 
down  a  price  for  them,  proportional  to  their  value,  according  to 
the  just  principles  of  a  literal  contract? 

An  Antinomian,  I  grant,  can  point  to  1  Cor.  vi.  30.  and  say,  "The 
wordof  God  is  plain  and  indisputable,  that  yc  are  bought  with  a 
priceJ'^  With  equal  propriety  and  strength  of  argument,  a  Papis* 
may  point  to  John  vi.  53.  and  tell  us,  "the  word  of  God  is  plain 
beyond  all  contradiction,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  iyi  youJ^  When  metaphors  or 
comparisons  are  drawn  from  the  practice  of  men  in  buying  and 
selling,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus  is  called  a  price  by  which  we  are 
purchased,  the  whole  is  to  be  taken,  it  seems,  in  a  proper  literal 
sense;  but  when  this  same  blood  is  represented  by  another  figure, 
and  the  Saviour  declares.  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is 
drink  indeed, — he  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  bloody 
dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him — the  whole  is  to  be  understood  me- 
taphorically. For  my  part  I  cannot  help  thinking  the  papistical 
argument  is  as  good  as  the  Aniinomian,  and  that  they  are  twin- 
sisters  that  must  stand  or  fall  together. 

"What  loads  of  heterodoxy,"  says  Mr.  Fletcher,  "have  degra- 
ded  parables  brought  into  the  church!  and  how  successfully  has 
error  carried  on  her  trade,  by  dealing  in  figurative  expressions,  ta- 
ken in  a  literal  sense!" 

"This  is  my  body,"  says  Christ:  "Therefore  bread  is  flesh,"  says 
the  papist,  and  transubstantiation  is  true."  "These  dry  bones  arc 
the  house  of  Israel,  says  the  Lord."  Therefore  Calvinism  is  true, 
say  my  objectors,  and  we  can  do  no  more  towards  our  conversion, 
than  dry  bones  towards  their  resurrection.  Lost  sinners  are  repre- 
sented in  the  gospel  as  a  lost  piece  of  silver:  therefore,  says  the 
author  of  Pietas  Oxoniensis,  they  can  no  more  seek  God,  than  the 

piece  could  seek  the  woman  who  had  lost  it Christ  is  the  Son  of 

God,  says  St.  Peter:  Therefore,  says  Arius,  he  is  not  co-eternal 
with  the  Father,  for  I  am  not  so  old  as  my  parents. — Vol.  i.  page 
224. 

Again:  "If  none  go  to  hell  but  goats,  and  none  to  heaven  but 
sheep,  where  shall  the  chickens  go!  Where  the  wolves  in  sheeps 
clothing?  And  in  what  limbus  of  heaven  or  hell  shall  we  put  that 
fox  Herod,  the  dogs  who  return  to  their  vomit,  and  the  swine,  be- 
fore whom  we  must  not  east  our  pearls?  Are  they  all  species  of 
goats,  or  some  particular  kind  of  sheep.^ 


26*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

"My  difficulties  increase.  The  church  is  called  a  dove,  and 
Ephraim  a  silly  dove.  Shall  the  silly  dove  be  admitted  among  the 
sheep.^  Her  case  seems  rather  doubtful.  The  hair  of  the  spouse  in 
the  Canticles  is  likewise  said  to  be  like  a  flock  of  goats,  and 
Christ's  shepherds  are  represented  as  feeding  kids,  or  young  goats 
beside  their  tents.  I  wonder  if  those  young  goats,  become  young 
sheep,  or  if  they  were  all  doomed  to  continue  reprobates.^  But 
what  puzzles  me  most,  is,  that  the  Babylonians  are  in  the  same 
verse  compared  to  Iambs,  rams  and  goats:  were  they  mongrel 
elect,  or  mongrel  reprobates,  or  some  of  Elisha  Cole's  'spiritual 
monsters,  in  whom  the  spirit  had  begotten  a  lump  of  dead  flesh?" 
Fletcher^s  Checks,  vol.  i.  page  236,  237. 

Mr.  Fletcher  takes  the  proper  method  to  refute  a  hypothetical 
absurdity,  by  setting  it  before  the  reader  in  difterent  views,  that 
he  may  view  it  on  all  sides,  and  perceive  i(s  naked  inconsistency' 
The  friends  of*'  degraded  parables"  will  doubtless  complain,  that 
our  running  to  other  passages,  and  comparing  them  together,  is 
not  to  be  tolerated,  because  it  is  bringing  the  scriptures  to  our  car- 
nal reason,  and  the  almost  magical  power  of  our  metaphysical 
distinctions,  as  one  of  Mr.  Fletcher's  opponents  very  wittily  ob- 
served, when  he  found  himself  unable  to  avoid  the  strong  argu- 
ments which  besieged  hira,  and  which  he  could  scarcely  notice 
with  any  degree  of  patience. 

I  must  take  the  liberty,  however,  to  ask  a  few  more  questions 
upon  th*^  subject  of  buying  and  selling.  When  the  wise  virgins  said 
to  the  foolish,  <  go  ye  rather  to  them  that  sellanAbuy  for  yourselves,'* 
did  they  really  mean  that  men  are  to  purchase  their  own  salvation, 
and  that  the  other  virgins  were  fools  for  thinking  it  might  be  had 
by  begging  or  asking  for.^  When  Soloman  said,  "Buy  the  truth 
and  sell  it  not,"  did  he  mean  that  some  person  has  a  store  house  of 
truth,  to  whom  we  must  lay  down  a  price  exactly  equal  to  its  va- 
lue.? 

Our  Saviour  tells  us,  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a 
wcrc/mni-jjim  (whose  chief  business  is  to  buy  and  sell)  seeking 
goodly  pearls:  who  when  he  had  found  one  pearl  of  great  pricet 
went  and  sold  all  that  he  had  and  bought  it, ^' — Matt.  xiii.    44,45, 

Would  he  have  us  understand  by  this  parable,  that  every  man 
must  purchase  salvation  for  himself,  and  give  a  great  price  for  it.** 
True,  says  an  antinomian,  but  he  furnishes  the  purchase-money 
})imself,  and  every  elect  soul  buys  it  in  the  name  of  his  surety. 

But  the  surety  himself,  who  says  "1  am  he  that  was  dead,  and 
behold,  I  am  alive  forevermore,  (Rev.  i.  18.)  invites  us  to  come  and 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  265 

purchase  it  of  him:  I  counsel  thee,  says  he,  (Rev.iii.  iS.ytobuyof 
me  gold  tried  in  the  fire,  and  white  raiment,  that  thou  mayest  be 
clothed." 

Are  we  to  learn  from  this,  that  he,  like  a  merchant-man,  to 
whom  he  compares  his  kingdom,  has  bought  righteousness  and 
salvation  by  the  gross,  and  proposes  to  retail  it  to  us,  at  proper 
retail  prices,  counselling  every  one  to  come  and  buy  for  himself?  Or 
are  we  to  be  told  from  the  chair  of  dictatorial  infallibility,  that  all 
these  and  such  like  scriptures,  are  to  be  considered  as  metaphors 
and  parables,  while  those  only  which  relate  to  redemption  are  to  be 
taken  in  a  literal  sense?  By  what  rule  shall  we  understand  the 
metaphors  of  scripture?  Shall  we  compare  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual,  as  the  apostle  directs  us,  or  must  we  keep  "  the  profane 
eye  of  human  reason"  down  to  the  standard  of  popish  and  antiuo- 
mian  orthodoxy? 

Papists  have  invented  an  hypothesis  that  bread  and  wine  are  a 
god;  antinomians  have  invented  another,  that  Jesus  Christ  took 
the  sins  of  the  elect  upon  him,  and  has  discharged  all  claims  of  jus- 
tice against  them:  neither  of  them  are  willing  that  one  figure  of 
scripture  relating  to  their  favourite  scheme,  should  be  explained  by 
comparing  it  w  ith  other  passages  where  the  same  term  is  used;  but 
every  passage  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  most  favourable  to 
their  respective  systems,  as  the  only  standard  of  explanation. 

The  papists  reason  very  consequentially  upon  this  subject:  if 
every  man  should  be  allowed  to  use  his  own  reason,  they  say,  eve- 
ry man  must  then  be  allowed  to  have  his  own  opinion,  and  there 
will  be  no  rule  by  which  the  true  divinity  and  orthodoxy  can  be  as- 
certained. 

Heresy  will  abound,  and  there  will  be  no  short  and  easy  rule  by 
■which  to  convince  heretics  of  their  delusions.  A  criterion  must  be 
had,  and  the  only  decisive  and  sure  one  is  that  of  infallibility, 
continued  from  age  to  age  in  St.  Peter's  chair  at  Rome.  Here  is 
the  grand  asylum  where  we  may  run  and  be  safe  from  all  danger 
of  heresy!  Meantime  we  must  be  very  cautious  not  to  indulge  our 
heretical  curiosity  in  asking,  "what  reason  we  have  to  believe  his 
holiness  is  infallible?" — but  we  must  learn  to  subdue  our  profane 
and  rebellious  reason,  and  obediently  submit  to  the  maternal  in- 
structions of  our  holy  moiher.  They  will  excuse  my  mentioning 
these  particulars;  for  what  I  have  said  is  nothing  more  than  the 
account  which  they  themselves  have  given  of  the  matter.* 

*  See  a  modern  performance  of  a  popish  doctor  of  Hexham,  en- 
titled "Reflections  on  the  spirit  of  religious  controversy,"  &c.  page 
176-215. 


S66  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

To  conclude:  when  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  a 
fountain  in  which  we  are  to  wash  our  robes  and  make  them  white, 
the  meaning  of  it,  according  to  the  well  known  doctrines  of  reve- 
lation, is,  that  we  are  indebted  to  his  suflferings  and  death  for  re- 
newing grace  or  sanctification.  When  it  is  said  we  must  eat  his 
flesh,  and  drink  his  blood,  we  understand  by  this  figure,  that  we  are 
to  live  a  spiritual  life  by  faith  in  the  Son  of  God:  as  we  must  eat 
and  drink  in  order  to  live  naturally,  so  we  must  exercise  faith  in 
the  merits  of  Christ  to  live  spiritually.  «The  life  which  I  now 
live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved 
me,  and  gave  himself  for  me." — Gal.  ii.  20. 

In  like  manner  when  his  blood  is  called  a  price,  or  when  we  are 
told  he  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  many,  the  meaning  is,  that  we 
•were  held  under  the  bondage  of  sin,  from  which  there  was  no  es- 
caping, till  his  death  made  the  throne  of  grace  accessible:  he  res- 
cued sinners  from  despair,  and  opened  a  door  of  hope  and  mercy 
for  the  world,  by  his  bloody  passion  on  the  cross:  hence,  by  a  figure 
common  among  men,  we  are  said  to  be  ransomed,  redeemed,  or 
bought  with  the  price  of  blood.  Such  expressions  are  not  applied 
to  literal  contracts  or  pecuniary  transactions,  and  I  am  persuaded 
the  world  would  never  have  heard  of  such  an  application  of  them, 
had  not  such  "degraded  parables"  been  found  convenient  to  the 
support  of  a  tottering  hypothesis,  that  must  be  concealed  under 
cover  of  distorted  allegories  to  be  kept  in  any  tolerable  counte- 
nance in  the  world. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  267 

CHAPTER  IV. 

AN    EXAMINATION    OF    SOME    GENERAL    OBJECTIONS    CONNECTED 
WITH  OTHER  DOCTRINES  OF   RELIGION. 

SECTION  I. 

Of  the  full  display  of  Eternal  Justice. 

Objection. — "Justice  is  an  essential  and  eternal  attribute  of 
God.  Its  demands  must  therefore  be  fully  and  entirely  satisfied; 
otherwise  the  Almighty  must  relinquish  a  part  of  his  justice,  and 
thereby  abandon  that  which  is  essential  to  his  nature,  and  con- 
sequently cease  to  be  God."    Answer; 

1.  Benevolence  is  an  eternal  attribute  of  God,  equally  essential 
to  his  nature;  it  must  therefore  be  fully'  and  entirely  displayed: 
Justice  forbids  the  exercise  of  benevolence,  or  it  does  not;  if  it 
does  not,  then  God  never  relinquishes  any  part  of  his  justice  by 
the  exercise  of  kindness  and  mercy:  if  it  does,  then  God  to  be 
just  must  relinquish  the  exercise  of  benevolence,  seeing  justice 
forbids  it:  therefore  he  must  abandon  that  which  is  essential  to 
his  nature,  and  consequently  cease  to  be  God. 

2.  The  objection  supposes  God's  eternal  justice  binds  himself, 
and  that  where  there  is  no  right  of  demand  in  another,  there  is 
still  an  obligation  on  him,  which  he  cannot  depart  from  without 
being  unjust:  for  supposing  the  general  welfare  to  be  secured 
through  the  Redeemer,  for  sinners  to  be  pardoned,  without  the 
whole  penalty  being  inflicted  on  themselves  or  any  other  person; 
if  God  be  still  bound  to  execute  vengeance  to  the  utlermost,  the 
inevitable  consequence  is,  that  he  must  give  up  the  prerogative  of 
exercising  clemency,  (a  prerogative  which  is  possessed  even  by 
an  earthly  ruler,)  in  order  to  secure  his  great  and  eternal  justice. 

3.  If  God  is  bound  under  obligation,  when  there  is  no  other  per- 
son's right  involved,  it  follows  that  justice  binds  him,  where  every 
other  being  is  left  free:  for  who  will  presume  to  say  that  any  man 
or  angel  is  bound  in  justice,  in  any  single  case,  but  where  there  is 
a  right  of  demand  in  another.^  And  if  men  and  angels  are  not 
thus  bound,  and  yet  their  Eternal  Maker  is,  does  it  not  follow 
that  justice  binds  the  Almighty,  and  denies  him  the  liberty  and 
authority  which  it  allows  to  the  meanest  of  his  creatures? 


268  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

4.  If  it  be  granted,  that  God  is  not  bound  to  punish  sinners,  ex- 
cepting where  tlie  omission  of  it  would  affect  tlie  rights  of  others, 
it  is  undeniable  thai,  excepting  such  cases,  he  has  a  right  to  par- 
don sinners,  and  never  to  inflict  the  penalty  which  they  had  incurred. 
And  if  we  call  this  leaving  his  justice  unsatisfied,  or  departing 
from  it,  we  say  God  departs  from  his  justice,  and  leaves  it  unsa- 
tisfied, by  doing  what  he  has  a  right  to  do. 

5.  Justice  is  fully  displayed,  and  entirely  satisfied,  the  moment 
universal  right  is  secured:  This  was  done  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  consequence  of  which  a  gracious  pardon  is  granted  to 
sinners.  But  God,  you  say,  had  a  right  to  punish  them,  and  this 
right  must  be  satisfied.  The  answer  is  easy:  the  moment  divine 
goodness  grants  pardon,  God's  individual  right  to  punish  is  satis- 
fied by  his  benevolence,  the  very  essence  of  which  consists  in 
voluntarily  giving  up  a  right  in  favour  of  another.  Deny  this,  and 
you  say  at  once,  that  benevolence  has  uo  place  in  the  divine  na- 
ture, and  that  justice  is  never  satisfied  for  God  to  bestow  a  favour 
until  he  is  bound  to  do  it,  and  then  it  is  no  favour,  but  the  mere 
discharge  of  an  obligation. 

6.  If  we  deny  that  benevolence  is  meritorious  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  justice,  we  must  suppose  that  punishment  is  the  only  thing 
which  satisfies  it;  but  1  hope  it  can  be  made  appear,  that  the  only 
thing  in  punishment  which  satisfies  justice,  is  its  tendency  to  se- 
cure the  rights  of  others,  aud  when  it  has  no  such  tendency,  jus- 
tice is  not  satisfied  with  it. 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  the  devil  and  his  angels  had  been 
punished  in  heaven  as  much  as  they  are  punished  in  hell,  but  had 
been  continued  in  their  native  region,  witb.full  power  to  disturb 
the  innocent  and  injure  them,  or  violate  their  rights  through  eter- 
nity; would  justice  be  satisfied  merely  with  their  being  punished 
when  that  punishment  was  not  inflicted  in  a  manner  that  should 
secure  the  rights  of  others.^  No:  if  they  were  made  to  endure  the 
full  degree  of  torment  which  their  iniquities  deserved,  justice 
would  not  be  satisfied  with  it  a  tittle  farther  than  it  had  a  tenden- 
cy to  secure  the  general  welfare;  and  if  it  had  no  such  tendency^ 
justice  would  remain  as  unsatisfied  as  if  the  governor  had  not 
punished  the  criminals  at  all:  because  if  he  punished  them  in  a 
way  that  answered  no  good  end,  he  had  no  regard  to  the  rights  or 
the  welfare  of  others,  and  therefore  there  would  be  neither  jus- 
tice nor  benevolence  in  the  matter.  Consequently  the  security  of 
general  happiness  and  universal  right,  is  the  only  thing  which 
satisfies  justice,  and  it  is  never  satisfied  with  punishment,  but  so 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  26jb 

£ar  as  it  has  a  tendency  to  promote  this  end.  To  deny  this,  is  to  say 
justice  is  satisfied  that  the  rights  of  the  innocent  should  not  be  se- 
cured, and  that  mere  punishment  satisfies  it,  without  any  regard  to 
the  tendency  or  end  of  that  punishments 

7.  If  you  admit  that  benevolence,  or  a  benevolent  regard  to  the 
general  welfare,  which  leads  to  every  proper  step  to  secure  it,  is 
that  which  satisfies  justice,  the  conclusion  is  secured,  that  as  soon 
as  those  ends  are  accomplished  by  the  goodness  of  God,  divine 
justice  is  fully  satisfied,  even  though  there  should  be  ten  thousand 
penalties  which  have  never  been  inflicted,  and  never  will  be.  But 
if  you  deny  this  doctrine,  you  must  of  necessity  maintain  that  mere 
punishment,  abstracted  from  its  tendency  to  secure  the  public  wel- 
fare, is  essential  to  the  full  display  of  divine  justice. 

If  this  attribute  cannot  appear  to  full  advantage,  by  merely  se- 
curing universal  right  and  happiness,  but  in  addition  to  that,  pun- 
ishment is  necessary  in  itself,  to  exhibit  the  full  glory  thereof,  the 
consequence  is,  that  before  sin  entered  into  the  creation  this  at- 
tribute was  not  satisfied,  or  not  fully  displayed,  seeing  nothing 
more  was  done  than  the  seeul-ity  of  universal  right,  and  no  punish- 
ment existed  to  display  and  exalt  this  great  perfection.  Therefore, 
God  must  either  punish  the  innocent,  or  force  them  into  sin  by  his 
decree,  in  order  fully  to  satisfy  and  show  forth  his  glorious  justicel 
Thus  we  see  how  the  various  parts  of  the  predestinarian  system 
are  connected  together,  and  how  naturally  they  rise  out  of  the  le- 
gal atonement,  which  some  inconsistent  Arminians  vainly  attempt 
to  reconcile  with  the  benevolent  doctrines  of  Christianity. 

If  justice  was  fully  exercised  and  exalted  originally,  by  the  se- 
curity of  universal  right,  it  is  still  fully  exercised  and  exalted  in 
securing  the  same  end,  otherwise  we  say  a  change  has  taken  place 
in  its  nature;  if  it  was  not,  then  justice  required  (he  introduction 
of  misery,  in  order  to  display  itself  ettectually,  and  of  course  this 
attribute  demanded  that  the  innocent  shonld  be  punished,  or  that 
they  should  become  guilty,  in  order  that  they  might  deserve  pun- 
ishment, and  thus  aftbrd  the  Creator  an  opportunity  to  glorify  his 
justice,  and  unfold  the  secrets  of  his  sovereign  w  ill! 

If  the  angels  had  continued  to  persevere  in  righteousness,  and  to 
refuse  to  subserve  the  divine  perfections  by  plunging  themselves 
into  sin,  the  Almighty,  it  should  seem,  to  display  his  eternal  jus- 
tice, must  secretly  contrive  their  apostaey  by  an  absolute  decree, 
while  he  is  openly  warning  them  against  it,  with  every  appear- 
ance of  truth  and  sincerity! 
Mm 


ii70  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

If  a  man  should  cruelly  beat  his  children  when  innocent,  or 
drench  them  with  intoxicating  liquors,  in  order  to  punish  them  se- 
verely for  being  drunkards,  would  not  this  be  an  admirable  way 
of  showing  his  justice?  And  would  it  mend  the  matter  for  him  to 
warn  them  against  intoxication,  and  make  great  professions  of  ab- 
horrence against  it,  and  at  the  same  time  to  contrive  some  secret 
way  of  leading  them  into  drunkenness  in  order  to  punish  them, 
without  letting  them  know  the  depth  of  his  secret  will  or  dissim- 
ulation? or  would  his  august  perfection  be  fully  unfolded  by  impu- 
ting drunkenness  to  them,  when  they  had  never  been  guilty  of  it? 

It  is  certainly  right  at  all  times  for  justice  to  display  itself  ful- 
ly and  perfectly,  the  contrary  of  which  is  an  evident  contradiction: 
if,  therefore,  the  infliction  of  penalties  be  essential  to  its  full  man- 
ifestation, it  was  right  for  them  to  be  inflicted  while  all  creatures 
remained  in  a  state  of  innocence,  or  for  the  creatures  to  be  led  in- 
to sin,  or  have  sin  imputed  to  them,  that  they  might  be  proper  sub- 
jects of  punishment. 

This  reminds  one  of  the  wonderful  display  of  justice  manifested 
by  the  popish  inquisitors:  "When  those  who  stood  mute  are  call- 
ed for  re-examination,  if  they  continue  silent,  such  tortures  are 
ordered  as  will  either  make  them  speak,  or  kill  them;  a  string  of 
accusations  is  brought  against  them,  to  which  they  are  obliged  to 
answer  extempore,  no  time  being  given  even  to  put  their  answer 
into  proper  method. 

"After  they  have  verbally  answered,  pen,  ink  and  paper  are 
given  them,  in  order  to  produce  a  written  answer,  which  it  is  re- 
quired shall  in  every  degree  coincide  with  the  verbal  answer.  If 
the  verbal  and  the  written  answer  difler,  the  prisoners  are  charged 
with  prevarication,  if  one  contains  more  than  the  other,  with  wish- 
ing to  conceal  certain  circumstances;  if  they  both  agree,  they  are 
accused  with  premeditated  artifice. 

"i.\nother  artifice  used  by  the  inquisitors  is  this:  If  a  prisoner 
has  too  much  resolution  to  accuse  himself,  and  too  much  sense  to 
be  ensnared  by  their  sophistry,  they  proceed  thus:  a  copy  of  an 
indictment  against  the  prisoner  is  given  him,  in  which,  among  ma- 
ny trivial  accusations,  he  is  charged  with  the  most  enormous  crimes, 
of  which  human  nature  is  capable.  This,  of  course,  rouses  his 
temper,  and  he  exclaims  against  such  falsities.  He  is  then  asked 
which  of  the  crimes  he  can  deny?  He  naturally  singles  out  the 
most  atrocious,  and  begins  to  express  his  abhorrence  of  them, 
when  the  indi^-tment  being  snatched  out  of  his  hand,  the  president 
says,  'By  your  denying  only  those  crimes  which  you  mention,  you 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  271 

implicitly  confess  the  rest,  and  we  shall  therefore  proceed  accord- 
Migly.' 

"The  inquisitors  made  a  ridiculous  affectation  of  equity,  by  pre- 
tending that  the  prisoner  may  be  indulged  with  a  counsellor,  if  he 
chooses  to  demand  one.  Such  a  request  is  sometimes  made,  and  a 
counsellor  appointed,  but  upon  these  occasions  as  the  trial  itself 
is  a  mockery  of  justice,  so  the  counsellor  is  a  mere  cypher;  for  he 
is  not  permitted  to  say  any  thing  that  might  offend  the  inquisitor, 
or  to  advance  a  syllable  that  might  benefit  the  prisoner."* 

Now  if  the  perfect  display  of  justice  consists  in  punishing  those 
as  criminals  who  are  innocent;  if  it  consists  in  forcing  or  enticing 
them  into  wrong  conduct  in  order  to  punish  them;  or  in  falsely 
imputing  crimes  to  them  which  they  never  committed;  the  Ro- 
man inquisitors  exhibited  the  most  perfect  display  of  justice  that 
tlie  world  has  ever  yet  beheld.  But  if  none  of  those  things  are  es- 
sential to  its  operations,  it  is  obvious  as  the  beams  of  day-light, 
that  God  could  display  his  righteousness  without  the  help  of  ei- 
ther sin  or  misery;  and  that  penal  torments  were  never  necessary 
till  the  voluntary  wickedness  of  angels  broke  in  upon  the  harmony 
of  heaven  and  called  forth  the  arm  of  justice  to  defend  the  injured 
rights  of  the  innocent,  by  executing  the  righteous  sentence  of  the 
law  upon  those  malevolent  and  cruel  invaders. 

It  is  very  evident  that  all  creatures,  while  they  continue  just, 
•will  continue  happy;  and  misery  had  no  place  in  the  creation 
while  justice  was  universally  maintained.  But  no  sooner  is  injus- 
tice introduced  than  it  produces  misery,  as  its  natural  offspring. 
The  rights  of  the  innocent  are  violated,  and  divine  justice,  ever 
watchful  to  guard  and  secure  them,  is  now  under  the  necessity  of 
doing  it  by  inflicting  misery  on  the  rebels.  Not  that  it  is  essential 
to  this  attribute  to  inflict  punishments ;  for  it  never  did  inflict  them 
before,  and  never  would  have  done  it,  had  not  the  introduction  of 
injustice  made  it  indispensably  necessary  for  the  vindication  of 
the  Divine  character  and  the  defence  of  the  public  welfare. 

It  is  for  the  sake  of  maintaining  happiness,  and  for  nothing  else, 
that  misery  is  ever  inflicted  by  the  influence  of  any  righteous 
principle.  To  say  justice  inflicts  punishment  because  it  essentially 
delights  in  the  infliction  of  it,  is  to  say  that  justice  and  unrelenting 
malice  are  precisely  the  same  thing. 

What  is  malice  but  a  diabolical  passion  which  disposes  a  per- 
son without  any  regard  to  the  security  of  general  l^appiness  to  in- 


*  See  the  Biographieal  and  Martyrolo^ical  Dictionary,  paa;e 
391  and  393. 


srs  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

fiict  torment  for  its  own  sake,  and  to  feast  upon  the  groans  of  the 
miserable?  Tliis  odious  venom  arises  from  the  profoundest  depths 
of  hell,  and  it  is  only  to  obstruct  the  influence  of  such  destructive 
principles,  and  to  prevent  others  from  falling  into  them,  that  the 
loving  Parent  of  all  creatures  ever  inflicted  punishments  ©neither 
angels  or  men. 

Though  it  be  granted  then,  that  justice  is  an  eternal  attribute 
of  God,  yet  we  can  never  be  persuaded  that  the  existence  of  misery 
was  essential  to  the  satisfaction  or  perfect  exercise  of  this  princi- 
ple, because  it  is  so  far  from  being  in  league  with  misery,  that  they 
are  at  perpetual  opposition  with  each  other;  and  it  is  to  prevent 
the  enlargement  of  wretchedness  that  justice  is  executed  by  the 
great  Ruler  of  the  heavens,  or  by  any  righteous  and  good  governor 
in  this  world. 

Let  us  look  back  to  the  blooming  period  of  universal  harmony, 
when  all  creatures  in  existence  were  both  innocent  and  holy;  let 
us  consider  the  scenes  of  undisturbed  tranquillity  which  gladden- 
ed the  regions  of  the  blessed,  prior  to  the  ravages  of  sin.  Did  not 
justice  demand  of  all  creatures  to  continue  in  the  way  of  perfect 
obedience.''  and  did  it  not  demand  of  their  Maker  not  to  punish 
them  as  rebels  while  they  were  perfectly  innocent.''  If  we  say  no 
we  say  it  does  not  demand  obedience  to  God,  and  that  it  does  not 
protect  the  innoecnt:  if  we  say  yes,  it  follows  that  justice,  far  from 
being  the  original  author  of  misery,  absolutely  demanded  that  mis- 
ery should  never  be  introduced.  And  had  justice  been  maintained 
by  all  creatpres,  as  it  was  by  their  Creator,  it  is  evident  that  mis- 
ery the  native  offspring  of  moral  evil,  would  never  to  this  moment 
have  existed  in  the  creation  of  God.  Consequently  the  moment 
misery  was  introduced,  by  one  creature  injuring  another,  justice 
was  violated;  and  therefore  misery  is  so  far  frpm  beingessential  to 
the  exercise  of  this  righteous  attribute,  that  it  is  essential  to  the 
exercise  of  injustice,  which  is  a  sworn  enemy  to  every  perfection  of 
the  Deity. 

But  these  principles,  I  fear,  have  sometimes  been  jumbled  to- 
gether in  dreadful  confusion.  Have  vve  indulged  a  confused  notion, 
that  no  misery  >vas  ever  produced  till  it  was  inflicted  by  the  hand 
of  God  on  account  of  sin?  But  what  is  sin  then?  Is  jt  a  perfectly 
harmless  thing  that  injures  no  being  in  any  part  of  the  creation? 
Did  God  give  his  creatures  a  code  of  moral  laws  >vhich  had  no  re- 
lation to  their  happiness  or  misery?  so  that,  had  he  let  them  alone, 
thty  would  all  have  been  as  happy  in  breaking  as  in  keeping 
them?  If  so,  there  was  no  benevolence  in  giving  the  law,  because 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  273 

the  operation  of  it  was  not  essential  to  the  happiness  of  a  single 
individual,  which  it  could  not  be,  if  they  could  be  as  happy  with- 
out  keeping  the  law  as  with  it.  And  how  were  the  rights  and  pri- 
vileges  of  others  violated  by  sin,  if  they  were  in  no  degree  affected 
hy  it?  If  the  first  wickedness  produced  no  misery,  it  did  no  harm  to 
any  one,  and  how  then  can  it  be  denominated  a  very  dreadful 
evil? 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  God  has  a  right  to  command  his  crea- 
tures as  he  pleases,  and  the  dreadful  evil  of  sin  consisted  merely 
and  solely  in  its  being  opposed  to  the  divine  authority.  But  if  it 
was  a  matter  purely  indifferent  what  kind  of  laws  God  gave  to  his 
creatures,  it  was  equally  indifferent  whether  he  gave  them  any 
laws  or  no;  because,  if  one  kind  had  no  more  tendency  to  promote 
their  happiness  and  guard  them  against  misery  than  another,  it 
h  evident  that  all  kinds  were  equally  frivolous.  But  if  so,  there 
was  no  wisdom  in  the  law-giver,  unless  wisdom  consists  in  pre- 
feringone  set  of  means  to  anotker  when  they  are  all  alike  indif- 
ferent  to  the  end.  In  such  indifferent  matters  the  most  egregious 
folly  could  choose  as  well  as  wisdom. 

If  it  be  granted  that  God  had  a  wise  end  in  view,  when  he  first 
gave  laws  to  his  moral  creatures,  I  would  be  glad  to  know  what 
end  he  had  in  view.''  Was  it  to  promote  their  happiness?  If  not, 
there  was  no  benevolence  in  the  matter,  whatever  his  end  might 
be:  and  if  it  was  to  promote  their  happiness,  then  there  was  a  pos- 
sibility for  it  to  be  destroyed  by  their  own  conduct,  otherwise  you 
say  he  gave  a  law  to  promote  their  happiness  which  had  no  ten- 
dency to  that  end;  which  it  could  not  have  if  a  breach  of  it  had  no 
more  effect  upon  their  enjoyments  than  the  most  cordial  obedi- 
ence. 

Did  he  give  a  law  to  secure  all  right  and  prevent  his  creatures 
from  injuring  each  other?  If  not,  he  had  no  regard  to  moral  jus- 
tice in  giving  it,  whatever  else  he  had  in  view;  if  he  did,  then  it 
was  possible  for  his  creatures  to  injure  each  other,  or  else  you  say 
he  gave  a  law  to  prevent  that  which  was  impossible. 

For  what  were  the  devils  "cast  into  hell,  and  reserved  in  chain* 
of  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,"  if  they  never 
didauy  harm?  If  misery  was  never  produced  till  it  was  inflicted 
by  the  hand  of  God,  it  is  certain  their  sin  never  injured  them- 
selves or  others,  and  never  would  have  hindered  any  creature 
from  being  as  happy  as  it  would  if  eiu  had  never  entered  iuto  the 
universe. 


ay*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

If  we  admit  this  hypothesis,  we  must  believe  that  right  and 
wrong  Iiave  no  relation  to  happiness  and  misery;  because  it 
supposes,  had  God  withheld  his  hand,  and  not  inflicted  misery  on 
his  creatures,  they  might  have  broken  his  laws  through  all  heaven 
and  earth  to  the  present  hour,  without  ever  injuring  themselves  or 
others,  or  diminishing  their  happiness  in  the  least  degree.  And 
moreover,  if  right  and  wrong  have  no  relation  to  misery,  then  it 
very  evidently  follows  that  when  God  inflicted  punishment  on  the 
fallen  angels,  he  did  neither  right  nor  wrong:  thus  all  moral  dis- 
tinctions are  confounded,  all  kinds  of  conduct  are  made  alike 
indifferent,  and  we  leap  into  the  profound  regions  of  atheism. 

If  we  say  misery  did  not  originally  result  from  that  conduct 
which  was  perfectly  indifferent,  it  must  of  necessity  have  arisen  ei- 
ther from  doing  wrong  or  from  doing  right;  if  the  former,  the  point 
is  gained  for  which  I  contend:  if  the  latter,  then  it  demonstrably 
follows  that  if  all  creatures,  and  the  Creator  with, them,  had  per- 
petually done  wrong,  misery  would  never  have  originated,  and 
perfect  felicity  would  have  been  universal  to  the  present  hour. 

Did  I  not  fear  that  any  farther  pursuit  of  this  point  Mould  in- 
sult the  reader's  understanding,  additional  arguments  should  be 
produced;  but  presuming  what  has  been  already  said  will  be  deem- 
ed sufficient,  I  proceed  only  to  mention  the  conclusions  which  fol- 
low. 

The  first  is,  that  when  all  creatures  were  innocent  and  upright, 
no  one  deserved  to  be  punished,  and  justice  was  so  far  from  re- 
quiring it,  that  it  required  the  contrary:  of  course  while  moral 
principles  prevailed,  misery  was  excluded  from  God's  universal 
dominion. 

Secondly,  it  follows  that  misery  was  introduced  by  injustice,  and 
unless  we  say  God  is  unjust,  we  are  constrained  to  admit  the  con- 
clusion, that  rebellious  creatures  brought  misery  on  themselves, 
and  injured  others,  not  by  any  special  appointment  of  God,  but  as 
the  natural  consequence  of  moral  evil. 

Thirdly,  by  thus  unjustly  introducing  misery,  they  forfeited 
their  native  right  to  happiness,  and  could  no  longer  appeal  to  jus- 
tice for  an  exemption  from  penal  torments,  as  innocent  creatures 
can,  because  they  deserved  to  suffer  for  violating  the  rights  of 
others,  and  flying  in  the  face  of  that  goodness  and  justice  which 
were  harmoniously  exercised  to  maintain  the  happiness  of  all. 

Fourthly,  the  righteous  Governor  of  his  creatures,  who  hitherto 
guarded  their  happiness  by  presenting  his  truth  to  their  understand- 
ing, and  thus  morally  drawing  them  to  obedience,  was  now  con- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  275 

strained  to  do  it  by  arresting  these  invaders,  and  manifesting  his 
abhorrence  of  their  crimes.  His  justice  now  demands  that  punish* 
ments  be  inflicted  on  the  rebels,  not  for  the  sake  of  punishing,  but 
for  the  sake  of  his  creatures  in  general  who  have  not  transgressed, 
and  whose  native  liberty  and  happiness  must  and  ought  to  be  de- 
fended. 

Fifthly,  as  justice  delights,  not  in  the  infliction  of  misery,  but 
in  the  security  of  good  government  and  general  happiness,  if  these 
ends  can  be  by  any  means  accomplished  without  delivering  the  re- 
bels over  to  the  punishment  they  deserve,  justice  will  be  satisfied 
for  them  to  receive  a  gracious  pardon,  and  enjoy  the  blessings  of 
their  Maker's  government  again. 

Sixthly,  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  his  heavenly  plan  of  redemption, 
satisfied  justice,  not  by  becoming  a  criminal  and  suffering  as  such, 
for  nothing  but  injustice  could  be  satisfied  with  this;  not  by  giving 
the  criminals  an  absolute  deliverance  from  the  penalty  whether 
they  repented  or  not;  nor  yet  by  suffering  all  that  was  due  to  sinj 
but  by  exhibiting  the  great  evil  of  sin,  and  demonstrating  God's 
abhorrence  of  it,  as  stated  in  the  foregoing  chapters. 


SECTION  XL 

The  supposed  necessity  of  sin  to  make  redemption  necessary. 

<'  If  sin  had  never  entered  into  the  world,  it  may  be  said,  the 
goodness  of  God  in  redemption  would  never  have  appeared,  and 
neither  his  justice  against  sin,  nor  his  mercy  to  sinners  could  have 
possibly  been  manifested:  therefore  the  nature  of  God  essentially 
demanded  the  introduction  of  moral  evil."  Answer: 

1.  It  is  true,  before  sin- entered  into  the  creation,  it  was  impos- 
sible for  either  justice  or  goodness  to  be  manifested  to  sinners,  be- 
cause there  were  no  such  creatures  in  being;  but  if  those  attributes 
were  exercised  in  behalf  of  the  upright,  and  afforded  them  all  the 
happiness  of  which  their  natures  were  capable,  what  more  was  ne- 
cessai-y.''  Must  God  make  sinners,  that  he  may  have  the  opportu- 
nity of  showing  his  mercy  to  them.''  If  a  physician  should  break 
his  neighbour's  arm,  in  order  to  show  his  skill  in  curing  it;  or 
drench  his  children  M-ith  strong  drink  to  display  his  goodness  in 


sre  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

pardoning  them  for  the  crime  of  drunkenness,  there  would  be  nei- 
ther justice  nor  mercy  in  such  an  action.  It  would  result  from  a 
combination  of  cruelty  and  pride:  for  it  could  not  arise  from  a  re- 
gard to  another's  happiness,  but  merely  to  make  a  selfish  and  hy- 
pocritical display  of  his  benevolence  at  their  expense.  If  he  was 
good,  why  did  he  not  rejoice  to  maintain  their  happiness  instead 
of  obstructing  it?  and  if  he  was  just,  why  did  he  inflict  misery  on 
others  which  they  did  not  deserve?  or  charge  them  with  the  crim- 
inality of  his  own  wrong  conduct?  There  cannot  be  a  more  palpa- 
ble contradiction  in  nature  than  to  say  it  was  good  and  just  for  God 
to  forbid  sin,  and  yet  that  his  goodness  and  justice  required  it,  in 
order  to  display  themselves!  that  his  attributes  required  of  his 
creatures,  not  to  sin,  and  at  the  same  time  required  that  they 
should  sin! 

2.  The  objection  supposes  that  it  is  merely  for  his  own  sake, 
and  not  for  the  sake  of  his  creatures,  that  God  displays  his  £rttri- 
butes.  For  if  goodness  and  justice  supported  and  guarded  innocent 
creatures  in  a  state  of  perfect  happiness,  before  the  introduction 
of  moral  evil,  then  nothing  more  was  necessary  to  be  done  for  their 
sake,  because  they  were  already  in  possession  of  perfect  and  un- 
obstructed happiness.  For  whose  sake  then  did  the  Creator  wish 
to  display  his  attributes  in  any  other  way?  Not  for  the  sake  of 
sinners,  for  there  were  none  in  being.  Not  for  the  sake  of  enlarg- 
ing the  happiness  of  his  creatures,  for  I  presume,  had  they  con- 
tinued upriglit,  their  obedience  would,  through  divine  beneficence, 
have  regularly  enlarged  it,  without  the  help  of  wickedness.  To 
deny  this  is  to  say  that  sin  can  furnish  the  creatures  of  God  with 
greater  degrees  of  felicity  than  his  goodness  could  possibly  do 
without  its  assistance.  And  if  it  was  really  so  necessary  for  the 
well  being  of  the  creation,  what  principle  in  the  Deity  influenced 
him  to  forbid  it,  and  to  guard  his  creatures  against  the  commis- 
sion of  it,  by  every  moral  motive  that  his  truth  could  communi- 
cate to  their  understandings?  Did  this  proceed  from  either  justice 
or  benevolence?  if  so,  it  is  just  and  good  to  discourage  moral  crea- 
tures in  the  pursuit  of  that  which  is  essential  to  the  perfection  of 
their  happiness,  or  to  hinder  them  from  being  so  happy  as  they 
might  be.  And  besides,  if  sin  was  essential  to  the  display  of  God's 
glory,  when  he  forbid  it,  was  this  done  to  prevent  the  display  of 
his  glory?  or  did  he  really  wish  them  to  violate  his  laws,  and  only 
pretended  to  be  pure  and  holy,  while  he  secretly  decreed  and  delight- 
ed in  their  rebellion  and  apostacy?  1  hope  the  reader  will  reject 
such  absurdities,  and  will  acknowledge  that  sin  was  never  ncee«- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  277 

sary  to   the  production  of  happiness,  but  that  it  is  the  parent  of 
misery,  hateful  to  God  and  to  all  his  holy  angels. 

"What  havoc  hast  thou  made,  foul  monster,  sin! 

(Breatest  and  first  of  ills!  the  fruitful  parent 

Of  woes  of  all  dimensions!  but  for  thee 

Sorrow  had  never  been. 

Accursed  thing!  O  where  shall  fancy  find 

A  proper  name  to  call  thee  by  expressive 

Of  all  thy  horrors?  pregnant  womb  of  ills! 

Of  temper  so  transcendently  malign. 

That  toads  and  serpents  of  most  deadly  kind 

Compared  to  thee  are  harmless.  Sickness 

Of  every  size  and  symptom,  racking  pains, 

And  bluest  plagues  are  thine!  See  how  the  fiend 

Profusely  scatters  the  contagion  round! 

Whilst  deep-mouth'd  slaughter  bellowing  at  her  heels, 

Wades  deep  in  blood  new  spilt;  yet  for  to-morrow 

Shapes  out  new  work  of  great  uncommon  daring 

And  inly  pines  till  the  dread  blow  is  struck." 

Blair. 

If  it  be  granted  that  the  divine  attributes  were  sufficiently  dis- 
played, before  the  introduction  of  evil,  for  the  support  and  enlarge- 
ment of  the  creature's  capacity  and  happiness,  what  other  or  bet- 
ter ends  could  be  accomplished  by  manifesting  them  in  any  other 
way?  And  even  supposing  the  utmost  extent  of  them  were  not  then 
fully  known,  there  was  no  need  of  any  more  while  all  creatures 
continued  holy  and  happy,  because  while  this  state  of  things  re- 
mained the  ends  were  accomplished  for  which  they  ever  were  dis- 
played at  all. 

Has  God  ever  made  known  his  wisdom  and  power  to  creatures 
in  all  their  extent,  so  that  he  knows  nothing  and  can  do  nothing 
but  what  he  has  fully  and.entirely  manifested?  I  presume  none  will 
be  disposed  to  affirm  this:  and  if  he  be  not  ambitious  to  display  the 
whole  extent  of  his  wisdom  and  power,  but  only  manifests  them  so 
far  as  is  necessary  for  the  benefit  of  his  creatures,  what  ground  is 
there  for  the  vain  presumption  that  he  was  not  satisfied  with  that 
manifestation  of  his  glory  which  innocent  creatures  in  heaven  be- 
held, but  was  ambitious  to  display  himself  in  some  other  way,  when 
it  was  not  necessary  to  the  felicity  of  any  creature  in  being?  If  he 
were  disposed  to  do  more  than  was  necessary  for  the  perfect  feli- 
N  n 


378  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

city  of  his  creatures,  and  the  security  of  their  rights^  what  benig- 
nity or  justice  would  appear  in  such  a  disposition?  Alas!  it  is  re- 
presenting our  great  Creator  as  being  governed  by  a  selfish  princi- 
ple, and  delighting  to  make  some  wonderful  display  of  himself, 
merely  for  his  own  gratification,  as  if  God,  like  fallen  man,  had  a 
disposition  to  do  certain  things  for  no  other  end  but  to  gain  ap- 
plause! 

Is  it  any  pleasure  to  the  Almighty  that  we  are  righteous? 
or  did  he  bring  us  into  being  because  he  needed  us,  and  M'as  con- 
cerned merely  to  let  others  see  how  glorious  he  is  in  himself? 
Surely  his  essential  goodness  was  the  cause  of  our  existence,  and 
had  it  not  been  for  this  attribute,  which  delights  in  the  communi- 
cation of  happiness,  I  presume  that  men  and  angels  would  have 
never  been.  His  other  attributes  are  exercised  in  subserviency  to 
this,  and  he  displays  himself  to  his  intelligent  creatures,  so  far  on- 
ly as  is  necessary  to  the  felicity  and  perfection  oftheir  nature. 
But  what  evidence  have  we  that  he  ever  has  fully  ihauifested  the 
whole  extent  of  his  perfections  to  any  creature?  "Hell  is  naked 
before  him,  and  destruction  hath  no  covering.  He  stretcheth  out 
the  north  over  the  empty  place,  and  hangeth  the  earth  upon  no- 
thing. He  holdeth  back  the  face  of  his  throne,  and  spreadeth  his 
cloud  upon  it.  The  pillars  of  heaven  tremble,  and  are  astonished 
at  his  reproof.  He  divideth  the  sea  by  his  power,  and  by  his  spirit 
he  hath  garnished  the  heavens.  Lo,  these  are  parts  of  his  waysj 
but  how  little  a  portion  is  heard  of  him?" — Job  xxvi.  6,  &c. 

If  then  he  has  made  known  but  a  little  portion  of  his  nature  to 
tjs,  it  must  be  because  he  is  perfectly  free  from  a  selfish  ambition, 
and  manifests  his  perfections  so  far  only  as  the  general  good  re- 
quires. Upon  this  principle  it  is  evident,  had  moral  evil  never  been 
introduced,  goodness  would  not  have  manifested  itself  in  redemp- 
tion, because  such  a  manifestation  would  not  be  necessary;  but  af- 
ter there  were  sinners  exposed  to  hopeless  misery,  the  Almighty 
Father  was  pleased  to  make  a  new  display  of  his  benevolence, 
and  to  evince  before  all  worlds  that  even  rebels  themselves  should 
not  finally  perish,  while  goodness  could  prevent  it.  "For  God  so  loved 
the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be- 
lievethinhimshouldnotperishbuthaveeverlastinglife."Joliniiil6^ 

I  suspect  it  will  be  said,  that  God  certainly  made  all  things  for 
his  own  glory,  that  he  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  and  that  creation,  providence,  redemption,  salvation  and 
damnation  are  to  be  resolved  into  nothing  else  but  his  sovereign 
pleasure.  Answer: 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  279 

1.  All  things  were  indeed  created  for  his  own  §lory,  because 
as  has  been  before  proved,  his  glory  consists  in  the  exercise  of  hi» 
attributes,  to  promote  the  general  welfare  of  all  creatures  capable 
of  moral  happiness. 

2.  It  is  true  likewise  that  every  thing  he  does,  is  done  accord- 
ing to  his  sovereign  pleasure,  because  the  pleasure  of  his  un- 
changeable nature  is  to  do  good,  and  to  make  all  creatures  happy> 
who  consent  to  be  so  without  injuring  the  innocent. 

But  (3.)  if  it  be  affirmed  that  he  ever  does  any  thing  among 
his  creatures,  without  having  a  regard  to  their  general  felicity, 
or  the  security  of  their  rights,  there  is  neither  goodness  nor  jus- 
tice in  those  actions:  and  I  would  be  glad  to  know  what  glory  he 
would  display  by  departing  from  the  moral  attributes  of  his  na- 
ture, or  what  pleasure  it  could  aflurd  him,  unless  we  suppose  he  is 
governed  by  a  selfish  principle,  which  is  pleased  to  depart  from 
goodness  and  righteousness.  This  is  the  very  principle  that  now 
predominates  in  the  devil  and  his  angels,  and  is  the  foundation  of 
all  the  wickedness  that  is  practised  in  either  earth  or  hell.  I  leave 
the  reader  to  make  the  application. 


SECTION  III. 

The  supposed  violation  of  truth. 

It  may  be  objected,  «If  any  sinner  is  pardoned  without  an  inflic- 
tion of  the  whole  penalty,  divine  truth  is  violated,  seeing  all  the 
punishment  is  not  endured,  which  was  threatened  against  the  dis- 
obedient: the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die." 

However  great  this  difficulty  may  appear,  it  bears  as  hard  upon 
the  other  system  as  upon  that  which  we  defend;  and  therefore 
our  opponents  are  no  less  concerned  in  the  removal  of  it  than  our- 
selves. 

Did  God  threaten  that  every  sinner  should  absolutely  be  pun- 
ished in  proportion  to  his  crimes?  How  then  was  this  fulfilled,  if 
any  sinner  was  not  thus  punished.'  It  alters  not  the  case  that  his 
surety  suffered  for  him;  because  the  threatening  was,  not  if  you  sin 
an  innocent  person  shall  suffer  in  your  place,  but  "the  soul  that 
sinneth  it  shall  die."    No  matter  what  the  means  were  through 


S80  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

which  the  sinner  is  rescued  from  punishment;  for  there  is  no  way 
for  the  threatening  to  be  literally  fulfilled,  but  for  him  in  his  own 
person  to  suffer  according  to  what  his  iniquities  deserve. 

If  our  opponents  could  prove  two  things,  they  would,  it  is  true, 
have  an  advantage  of  us  in  this  particular:  if  they  could  prove  (1.) 
that  the  original  threatening  was,  not  "the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall 
die,"  but  every  degree  of  torment  that  sinners  will  deserve  shall 
absolutely  be  suffered  by  some  person:  and  (3.)  that  the  Redeemer 
actually  did  endure  the  whole  torment,  that  the  elect  ever  would 
have  suffered  in  hell,  if  he  had  not  died  for  them; — let  these  points 
be  established,  I  say,  and  they  will  be  able  to  make  appear  that 
their  system  secures  the  attribute  of  truth,  by  evincing  a  literal 
accomplishment  of  what  was  denounced  against  sin. 

But  as  they  cannot  prove  those  points,  and  do  not  even  profess 
to  believe  them,  the  present  objection  is  nugatory,  when  urged  as  a 
difficulty  peculiar  to  the  doctrine  advanced  in  the  preceding  pages; 
because  it  equally  affects  every  system  that  includes  the  dili- 
verance  of  any  sinner  from  the  sentence  denounced  against  him, 
whatever  the  means  might  be  through  which  his  salvation  should 
be  accomplished. 

This  answer,  however,  does  not  satisfy  the  serious  inquirer; 
because,  though  it  retorts  the  objection,  yet  it  does  not  remove  it. 

The  proper  answer  must  be  founded  upon  this  principle:  that 
although  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  yet  it  is  not  so  for  him  to 
withhold  the  communication  of  his  truth  from  creatures  who  are  not 
capable  of  receiving  it  without  being  injured  instead  of  being  bene- 
fitted thereby. 

It  is  manifest  through  all  the  scriptures  that  a  condition  is  of- 
ten implied  without  being  expressed;  or  in  other  words,  a  punish- 
ment is  threatened,  without  any  mention  of  the  condition  on  which 
it  may  be  suspended.  We  might  produce  the  case  of  Nineveh,  and 
many  other  instances,  where  the  penal  consequences  of  sin  hare 
been  denounced  without  any  mention  of  the  possibility  of  pardon, 
or  any  intimation  that  mercy  would  devise  a  method  to  prevent 
the  execution  of  the  sentence  on  those  who  should  offend. 

While  Adam  stood  upright  God  only  made  known  to  him  the 
wages  of  sin,  "in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die,"  without  revealing  the  designs  of  his  mercy  in  case  of  disobe- 
dience, until  such  a  revelation  was  necessary  to  support  his  des- 
pairing mind  after  the  transgression:  then,  and  not  before,  God 
promised  that  "the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's 
head." 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  281 

The  same  goodness  which  discouraged  sin  by  the  threatening, 
concealed  the  designs  of  mercy  to  sinners:  because  a  revelation  of 
intended  mercy  could  answer  no  end  at  that  time,  but  to  weaken 
the  penal  sanctions  of  Ihe  law,  and  prevent  their  influence  on  the 
mind. 

The  Almighty  Father  doubtless  pledged  his  truth,  that  his  ab- 
horrence of  sin  should  be  manifested,  and  that  the  rights  and  hap- 
piness of  his  innocent  creatures  should  be  secured:  one  way  by 
which  this  was  to  be  done,  he  made  known;  namely,  by  the  con- 
demnation of  offenders:  but  though  the  infinite  mind  conceived  an- 
other method  through  which  those  ends  could  be  accomplished,  in 
a  manner  that  should  accord  with  the  salvation  of  penitent  sinners, 
yet  he  was  under  no  obligation  to  communicate  this  knowledge  to 
innocent  Adam  in  Paradise:  nor  would  there  be  any  benevolence 
in  such  a  revelation,  before  sin  entered  into  the  Morld,  for  the  rea- 
son above  advanced. 

Now  if  we  charge  our  Maker  with  a  violation  of  truth,  for  re- 
vealing to  Adam  the  penalty  of  the  law,  without  making  known  the 
whole  extent  of  his  own  mercy,  this  is  to  say,  the  withholding  of 
truth  is  falsehood,  and  if  so,  there  is  no  way  for  God  to  avoid  be- 
ing a  liar  but  by  making  known  to  us  all  that  he  knows  himself. 

The  threatening  of  the  divine  law,  absolutely  and  definitely  ex- 
pressed, would  stand  thus:  all  sinners,  who  finally  reject  the  terms 
of  mercy,  shall  suffer  ihe  penalty.  This  will  most  certainly  be  ac- 
complished. But  withhold  the  clause  which  includes  the  revela- 
tion of  pardon,  and  it  will  be,  if  you  become  sinners  you  shall  suf- 
fer the  penalty,  or  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,  without  an 
intimation  of  any  method  of  salvation  or  deliverance. 

The  sentence  against  Adam  has  been  by  Paine,  turned  into  re- 
proach and  ridicule:  "The  Christian  system,"  says  he,  "represents 
the  Almighty  as  coming  off,  or  revoking  the  sentence,  by  a  quib- 
ble upon  the  word  death:"  and  perhaps  others  may  say,  if  part  of 
the  truth  in  such  a  case,  were  withheld,  it  would  in  effect  be  a 
falsehood;  because  it  would  convey  a  false  idea  to  the  mind:  name- 
ly, that  the  sentence  was  absolute  and  unconditional.  We  answer: 

1.  God  did  not  declare  the  sentence  was  unconditional,  and 
that  every  sinner  should  absolutely  be  excluded  from  the  possibil- 
ity of  pardon;  but  only  withheld  the  knowledge  of  his  mercy  till 
it  was  necessary  to  reveal  it. 

2.  This  afforded  no  evidence  to  Adam  that  sin  could  be  for- 
given, or  that  it  could  not:  this  indeed  left  him  in  a  state  of  entire 
ignorance,  but  could  not  lead  hira  into  error,  unless  he  should  be» 


282  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

lieve  things  without  evidence;  and  in  that  case  he,  not  his  Maker, 
would  be  the  author  of  the  delusion.  Must  God  be  charged  with 
deceiving  his  creatures,  because  they  believe  what  they  please, 
upon  their  own  voluntary  imaginations,  when  he  has  given  them 
no  grounds  to  believe  any  thing  concerning  the  matter? 

3.  When  Adam  believed  the  testimony  of  God,  that  sinners 
should  die,  he  believed  the  truth;  and  though  he  had  no  idea  that 
any  should  ever  be  made  alive  again,  yet  the  withholding  of  this 
truth  from  him  was  no  contradiction  of  the  other,  and  therefore 
was  no  falsehood.  Apd  if  the  nature  of  death  was  left  in  some  de- 
gree unknown  or  indefinite,  to  leave  him  in  a  state  of  ignorance, 
whereby  he  was  guarded  against  dangerous  presumptions,  this 
surely  was  the  result  of  perfect  goodness. 

4.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  God  was  not  bound  to  reveal  the 
whole  extent  of  his  mercy  to  Adam  before  the  fall,  but  that  it  was 
right  for  him  to  withhold  this  knowledge  from  him:  also  that  it 
was  just  and  good  for  him  to  make  known  to  Adam  the  penal 
consequences  of  sin,  in  a  manner  best  adapted  to  his  present  state, 
and  best  calculated  to  deter  him  from  disobedience.  To  accomplish 
this,  the  threatening  must  of  necessity  be  given  in  such  a  way  as 
would  convey  no  idea  of  salvation  for  the  sinner.  And  how  could 
this  be  done  but  by  exhibiting  the  penalty  by  itself,  and  leaving 
room  for  the  display  of  mercy,  without  any  expression  of  it,  by 
concealing  the  conditionality  of  the  threatening  in  silence,  er  un- 
der cover  of  metaphorical  or  indefinite  expressions? 

Now  if  God  had  a  right  to  withhold  part  of  the  truth  from  Adam, 
it  was  just  for  him  to  do  so:  if  a  revelation  of  part  only  was  at 
that  time  best  calculated  to  promote  the  creature's  happiness,  it 
was  also  a  display  of  benevolence:  therefore  to  call  this  a  false- 
hood, is  to  say  a  lie  consists  in  the  exercise  of  justice  and  loving 
kindness. 

This  would  charge  with  falsehood  all  legislators  whose  laws 
threaten  murderers  with  death,  without  at  the  same  time  declaring 
that  they  may  possibly  obtain  forgiveness. 

It  will  charge  with  falsehood  the  God  of  nature,  who  gives  sin- 
ners a  consciousness  that  they  are  guilty,  and  exposed  to  punish- 
ment, without,  at  the  same  time,  giving  them  any  natural  convic- 
tion that  their  sins  may  be  forgiven.  This  interesting  knowledge 
has  been  hid  for  ages  from  many  nations,  and  is  only  brought  to 
light  by  the  gospel,  or  divine  revelation. 

Add  to  this,  that  God's  promising  to  Israel  in  Egypt,  that  they 
should  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  withaut  at  that  time  express- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  283 

ing  any  possibility  of  a  forfeiture: — his  promising  them  an  illustri* 
ous  Messiah,  who  should  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David  forever 
without  revealing  the  spirituality  of  his  kingdom: — his  threatening 
to  destroy  Nineveh  in  forty  days,  without  giving  a  hint  that  tlie 
threat  was  conditional: — his  commanding  Abraham  to  slay  his 
beloved  son,  without  mentioning  that  the  execution  should  be  pre- 
vented in  the  last  moment: — these,  and  many  other  instances  might 
be  produced  to  prove  our  Creator  false  and  deceitful,  if  falsehood 
consists  in  leaving  persons  in  a  state  of  ignorance,  when  certain 
branches  of  knowledge  are  not  suitable  to  their  present  state,  and 
would  tend  to  their  disadvantage  and  misery. 

Without  consuming  time  upon  this  theme,  we  may  just  observe: 
(1.)  That  the  immoral  principle  of  falsehood  consists  in  an  inten- 
tion to  deceive  another  to  his  injury.  (2.)  That  the  expression  of  it 
consists  in  oxhibiting/aZse  evidence  to  another,  by  words  or  actions, 
with  a  design  that  he  should  receive  it  as  evidence  of  truth.  (3.) 
That  a  part  of  the  truth  withheld,  when  the  divulging  of  it  would 
do  no  good,  but  would  be  injurious,  is  so  far  from  being  a  false- 
hood: that  it  results  from  a  principle  of  loving  kindness.  (4.)  Lastly 
that  the  truth  of  God  can  never  contradict  his  other  attributes, 
that  he  never  pledged  his  veracity  to  do  any  thing  in  opposition  to 
them,  and  consequently,  if  the  death  of  Christ  perfectly  displayed 
his  justice  and  goodness,  it  secured  every  thing  that  ever  his 
truth  was  engaged  to  accomplish  or  perform.  If  we  say  he  ever 
promised  or  threatened  to  do  any  thing  contrary  to  his  moral  attri- 
butes, we  say  he  engaged  to  do  wrong;  and  if  he  did  not,  then  the 
utmost  he  ever  engaged  to  do  was  to  exercise  his  attributes  for 
the  defence  of  his  government  and  the  security  of  general  happi- 
ness: consequently,  a  redemption  which  accomplishes  those  pur- 
poses, does  every  thing  that  divine  ir-Mf/i  requires,  and  therefore 
this  attribute  is  fully  displayed  by  a  vindication  of  the  rest. 


SECTION  IV. 

Moral  principles  in  the  Deity  are  not  different  from  those  which  are 
to  govern  his  creatures. 

We  come  now  to  consider  another  plausible  evasion.  "Al- 
though the  preceding  arguments  may  be  conclusive,  as  they  relate 
to  justice  and  goodness  between  man  and  man,  yet  it  may  be  sup- 


284  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

posed  unreasonable  and  presumptuous  to  apply  them  to  God,  be- 
cause his  attributes  are  beyond  our  comprehension,  and  may  be  to- 
tally difterent  in  their  operations  from  such  principles  in  finite 
creatures.  What  God  may  or  may  not  do,  we  know  not,  and  it  is 
blasphemy  for  us  to  inquire;  because  he  has  a  right  to  do  every 
thing  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  He  has  made  right 
and  wrong  to  be  what  they  are;  he  could  have  made  them  entire- 
ly different  had  he  so  pleased;  and  whatever  he  wills  to  do  is  right, 
for  no  other  reason  but  because  he  wills  it." 

Some  such  view  as  this  many  appear  to  have  indulged,  concern- 
ing the  authority  or  sovereignly  of  God;  He  is  the  fountain  of 
justice,  they  conclude,  and  may  make  one  standard  of  it  for  his 
creatures,  and  another  for  himself,  because  he  is  under  the  con- 
troul  of  no  superior  authority,  and  has  no  other  rule  of  his  actions 
but  his  own  sovereign  pleasure.  This  maxim  appears  to  have  pre- 
vailed very  generally,  in  the  beginning  of  the  l7th  century,  when 
Calvinian  predestination  was  at  the  height  of  its  splendour,  ag 
we  may  learn  from  a  declaration  of  king  James  I.  of  England. 
When  addressing  his  parliament  in  defence  of  his  own  kingly  pre- 
rogative, he  expressed  himself  in  these  terms:  «  I  conclude,  then, 
the  point  touching  the  power  of  kings,  with  this  axiom  of  divini- 
ty, that  as  to  dispute  what  God  may  do,  is  blasphemy,  but  what 
God  wills,  that  divines  may  lawfully,  and  do  ordinarily  dispute 
and  discuss;  so  is  it  sedition  in  subjects  to  dispute  what  a  king 
may  do  in  the  height  of  his  power.  But  just  kings  will  ever  b6  will- 
ing to  declare  what  they  will  do,  if  they  will  not  incur  the  curse 
of  God.  I  will  not  be  content  that  my  pow  er  be  disputed  upon; 
but  1  shall  ever  be  w  illing  to  make  the  reason  appear  of  my  doings, 
and  rule  my  actions  according  to  my  laws."* 

Thus  we  perceive  his  majesty  assumed  the  fancied  prerogative 
of  Deity;  and  maintained  that  justice  in  kings  consists  in  "declar- 
ing what  they  will  do,"  and  in  "ruling  their  actions  according  t» 
their  laws:"  that  is,  that  they  have  a  right  to  make  their  laws  of 
action  in  any  manner  they  may  choose,  and  then  their  justice  con- 
sists in  conforming  to  these  laws  till  they  shall  will  to  alter  them^ 
and  establish  another  kind  of  justice,  by  which  to  regulate  their 
conduct.  This  august  sovereignty  he  defends  by  an  appeal  to  the 
well  known  "axiom  in  divinity,  that  it  is  blasphemy  to  dispute 
what  God  may  do,"  because  there  is  no  other  right  and  wrong 
with  him,  but  such  as  he  wills  to  establish,  and  may  alter  as  he 
will.  This,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  conceive,  is  the  meaning  of  the 


*Hume's  History  of  England,  vol.  iv.  page  236. 


FLAN  OP  SALVATION.  283 

axiom:  for  if  God  may  not  do  any  thing  contrary  to  justice,  and  if 
it  is  right  for  us  to  reason  upon  this  subject,  then  it  is  no  "blas- 
phemy to  dispute  what  God  may  do,"  and  no  "sedition  in  subjects 
to  dispute  what  a  king  may  do  in  the  height  of  his  power." 

1  feel  inclined  to  indulge  my  opposition  to  this  "'axiom  in  divini- 
ty," by  attempting  to  prove,  first,  that  moral  principles  in  the 
Deity  are  the  same  that  are  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  his  crea- 
tures; and,  secondly,  that  they  are  eternal,  were  never  made,  and 
can  never  be  altered  or  destroyed. 

First,  The  principles  of  righteousness  in  the  great  Creator  are 
nothing  different  from  those  principles  in  men  and  angels. 

We  freely  acknowledge  that  God  possesses  them  in  infinitely 
higher  degrees  of  perfection  or  extent,  than  any  finite  creature  can; 
but  higher  degrees  of  the  same  thing,  can  never  be  different  from 
its  lowest  degrees,  unless  we  absurdly  imagine,  that  righteousness, 
carried  to  the  utmost  height  of  perfection,  may  become  totally  al- 
tered in  its  nature,  and  may  degenerate  info  an  opposite  tendency. 
Goodness  in  creatures  disposes  them  to  communicate  happiness;  but 
this  principle  in  the  Deity  is  infinitely  higher  and  more  extensiv«i 
than  in  them;  therefore  God  is  infinitely  more  disposed  to  commu- 
nicate happiness  than  men  or  angels  are.  A  just  being  will  never 
inflict  punishments  where  they  are  not  deserved,  or  where  no  end 
of  goodness  can  be  promoted  by  them:  but  God  is  infinitely  just, 
and  therefore  he  has  a  stronger  opposition  to  all  acts  of  cruelty 
than  any  other  being  in  the  universe.  How  ridiculous,  therefore,  must 
it  be,  to  infer  from  the  superlative  excellence  of  the  divine  perfec* 
tions,  that  they  may  be  entirely  different  in  their  operations  from 
those  principles  of  morality  as  they  are  conceived  by  the  human 
understanding! 

It  is  granted  that  the  creatures  of  God  have  not  the  same  na- 
tive right  of  demand  upon  him,  that  they  have  upon  each  other: 
each  person  in  relation  to  his  fellow  creatures,  has  a  right  to  his 
existence,  and  to  the  means  necessary  for  the  support  and  happi- 
ness of  his  life;  and  hence  there  is  a  corresponding  obligation  in 
them  not  to  violate  these  rights;  but  he  has  no  right  to  demand 
existence  at  the  hand  of  God,  but  holds  his  life  and  all  the  bless- 
ings of  it,  up»n  the  grant  of  benevolence. 

As  God  was  not  bound  injustice  to  create  the  universe,  so  nei- 
ther is  he  bound  injustice  to  continue  it  in  being;  and  he  is  under 
no  obligation  to  continue  the  existence  of  any  man  or  angel  only  as 
he  has  condescended  to  bind  himself  by  promise:  had  he  not  gra- 
O  o 


286  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ciously  pledged  his  veracity,  he  might  this  moment  annihilate  eve- 
ry creature  in  existence,  without  violating  the  right  of  any  one. 

Hence  we  are  under  obligations  of  gratitude  to  God  for  our  crea- 
tion, preservation,  redemption,  forgiveness,  sanctification  and 
eternal  happiness:  because  all  these  things  are  derived  from  his 
benevolence,  which  is  the  only  cause  of  gratitude.  Had  God  been 
bound  in  justice  to  do  any  of  those  things,  upon  our  inherent  right 
of  demand,  we  should  have  been  under  no  obligation  of  gratitude 
for  them,  because  we  should  only  receive  our  right,  which  could 
not  be  withheld  without  injustice.  For  the  same  reason  God  is  not 
under  obligations  of  gratitude  to  any  creature,  because  it  is  impos- 
sible for  any  creature  to  do  him  a  favour,  which  is  the  only  ground 
of  it. 

But  all  thisaflbrds  no  shadow  of  evidence  that  moral  princi- 
ples in  the  Deity  arc  any  thing  diftereut  from  those  principles  in 
his  creatures. 

His  benevolence  essentially  includes  the  right  of  option,  to 
grant  favours  or  withhold  them:  the  same  thing  holds  in  creatures, 
so  far  as  they  can  be  benevolent,  which  is  limited  to  their  fel- 
low-creatures alone,  because  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  bestow  a 
favour  upon  their  Maker;  but  have,  ou  the  contrary,  derived  their 
being  and  all  their  good  things  from  his  benelicence,  and  are  there- 
fore bound  in  duty  to  God,  to  do  every  thing  that  is  right  and 
good. 

The  attribute  of  truth  is  also  the  same  in  God  that  it  is  in  his 
creatures.  He  is  not  bound  to  give  his  promise,  or  to  confirm  it 
by  an  oath;  but  when  he  does  so,  he  graciously  binds  himself,  and 
lias  no  more  right  to  be  false  and  deceitful  than  any  other  being. 

His  justice  is  also  the  same.  Though  no  creature  has  an  inher- 
ent right  to  demand  a  perpetual  preservation  in  existence,  yet 
every  creature,  while  innocent,  has  an  inherent  right  to  demand 
exemption  from  the  everlasting  damnation  that  is  due  to  the  devil 
and  his  angels,  and  hence  there  is  a  corresponding  obligation  iu 
the  Almighty,  as  in  every  other  being,  not  to  violate  the  character 
of  the  innocent,  by  false  accusations,  or  to  make  them  endure  the 
penalties  due  only  to  the  guilty.  To  deny  this,  is  to  say  God  has  a 
right  to  be  wicked,  or  that  he  has  a  right  to  do  wrong,  which  is  an 
absolute  contradiction,  and  therefore  impossible. 

These  principles  are  so  clear,  that  1  think  no  man  can  deny 
them  without  doing  violence  to  his  reason  and  conscience,  as  well 
as  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  gospel;  but  as  a  great  stand  has  been 
made  against  them,  I  shall  probably  find  it  necessaRy  to  defend 
them  more  particularly  iu  another  place. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  287 

It  is  unjust  to  inflict  pain,  where  there  is  no  guilt,  unless  it  be 
necessary,  and  be  done  with  a  kind  intention,  to  prevent  a  greater 
eril  or  to  promote  the  happiness  of  the  subject  afterwards:  there- 
fore, in  all  cases  of  this  kind  where  it  is  inflicted  by  a  just  and  good 
Creator,  it  is  done  to  subserve  such  benevolent  intentions,  perhaps 
not  discoverable  by  us  in  the  present  state,  but  which  may  clearly 
be  made  known  when  God  shall  have  perfected  the  dispensations 
of  his  providence  and  grace.  There  is  no  other  inference  possible, 
if  moral  principles  in  the  Deity  are  the  same  that  regulate  the 
conduct  of  his  creatures,  and  that  they  are  so,  I  hope  to  prove  by 
the  following  arguments. 

1.  If  they  be  not  the  same,  the  moral  law  affords  no  evidence  of 
the  nature  of  its  author.  This  law  we  have  considered  as  a  copy 
of  the  divine  perfections;  but  if  his  justice  and  goodness  be  any 
thing  different  from  that  kind  which  his  law  enjoins,  the  study  of 
those  principles  will  give  us  no  certain  evidence  of  his  moral  na- 
ture. His  law  is  holy,  just  and  good;  but  his  own  justice  and  good- 
ness are  supposed  to  be  of  another  kind,  and  how  different  they 
may  be  from  the  principles  we  are  acquainted  with,  what  creature 
is  able  to  determine? 

2.  This  hypothesis  would  leave  no  rational  grounds  for  hope, 
or  faith,  or  confidence  in  God:  Shall  I  trust  in  his  goodness?  Alas, 
I  know  not  what  it  is!  his  attributes  are  so  profound  a  mystery,  I 
am  told,  that  I  am  not  to  apply  my  narrow  conceptions,  to  draw 
inferences  concerning  what  God  may  do,  but  only  what  he  wills 
to  do!  And  this  I  can  never  discover,  because  a  thousand  promises 
will  afford  me  no  consolation,  seeing  his  truth  may  be  as  different 
from  ours  as  any  of  his  other  attributes. 

3.  It  would  be  impossible  for  any  creature  to  imitate  the  great 
Maker  of  the  world,  as  our  Saviour  exhorts  us  to  do;  because  our 
exercising  justice  and  mercy  among  men  is  no  imitation  of  God,  if 
his  justice  and  mercy  be  of  another  kind. 

4.  Christians  are  sajd  to  be  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  and 
are  transformed  into  the  image  of  God,  which  is  said  to  consist  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness:  but  if  God  is  governed  in  his  ac- 
tions by  a  righteousness  and  holiness  of  another  kind,  how  are  they 
partakers  of  his  nature  or  image?  And  why  should  we  worship  or 
love  a  God  whose  nature  and  attributes  are  unknown,  and  some- 
thing different  from  what  has  ever  entered  into  our  hearts  to  con- 
ceive? Would  not  this  be  to  worship  an  unknown  God  with  a  wit- 
ness? and  might  it  not  be  said  to  every  one  of  us,  as  our  Saviour 
said  to  the  Samaritans,  "ye  worship,  ye  know  not  what"?  Leaving 


sea  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

our  opponents  to  answer  these  plain   questions,  we  proceed  to 
prove, 

Secondly,  that  moral  principles  are  eternal,  were  never  created, 
and  can  never  be  destroyed. 

1.  To  say  they  are  not  eternal,  but  were  made  by  the  Almighty, 
is  to  suppose  that  with  God  there  is  no  distinction  between  right 
and  wrong,  between  moral  good  and  evil,  but  that  all  he  does  is 
perfectly  indifterent;  there  being  nothing  moral  in  any  of  his  ac- 
tions. He  might  alter  his  principles  of  action  in  any  way  that  can 
he  imagined,  and  they  would  be  equally  righteous,  because  he  made 
right  and  wrong  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  and  has  an 
equal  right  to  alter  and  change  them  till  that  which  is  now  just 
shall  become  unjust,  and  that  which  is  now  kind  shall  become  cru- 
el! If  so,  we  say  God's  justice  consists  in  doing  any  thing,  every 
thing,  or  nothing:  or,  in  other  words,  that  there  is  no  principle  of 
justice  in  his  nature. 

2.  If  the  principles  of  righteousness  are  not  eternal,  but  were 
formed  by  the  divine  will,  it  plainly  follows  that  God  made  his 
own  attributes  and  that  they  are  not  eternal.  Is  not  justice  an 
eternal  attribute  of  God?  and  does  not  this  consist  in  having  a  re- 
gard to  that  which  is  right,  and  an  aversion  to  that  which  is 
wrong?  If  so,  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  is  eternal, 
and  those  principles  of  moral  goodness  brought  to  light  by  the  law 
jand  the  gospel,  are  everlasting  and  unchangeable  as  the  divine  na- 
ture. 

3.  According  to  "the  axiom,"  or  rather  the  hypothesis  undercon- 
sideration,  the  Almighty  could,  had  he  been  so  minded,  have  made 
benevolence  consist  in  the  infliction  of  eternal  torments  on  the 
innocent,  and  have  made  barbarous  cruelty  consist  in  the  regular 
promotion  of  felicity.  Had  he  created  all  men  and  angels  in  hell, 
in  order  to  torment  them  forever  and  ever,  it  would  have  been  as 
perfectly  just  and  good  as  any  thing  he  has  ever  done,  because 
with  him  every  thing  is  righteous  and  he  has  no  rule  for  his  ac- 
tions but  his  own  sovereign  and  independent  will. 

If  we  find  ourselves  unable  to  digest  these  shocking  opinions,  we 
must  of  necessity  admit  that  the  principle  of  right  is  the  same  yes- 
terday, to-day  and  forever.  It  was  never  produced  as  the  effect  of 
will  or  volition,  but  being  as  essential  to  God  as  his  omnipotence, 
it  is  as  eternal,  as  necessary,  as  indestruetable  and  unchangeable 
as  the  divine  nature  itself. 

But  though  the  nature  of  justice  and  goodness  is  eternal  and 
eannot  be  altered,  yet  the  exercise  of  those  attributes  for  our  be- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  284 

nefit  is  a  voluntary  act  of  the  divine  will.  God  was  never  bound  to 
bring  us  into  being,  because  it  was  an  effect  of  his  goodness,  which 
essentially  includes  the  right  of  option,  to  grant  favours  or  to 
withhold  them;  and  if  he  were  to  let  us  drop  into  our  original 
nothingness,  he  would  do  us  no  wrong;  because  we  have  no  right 
to  demand  existence  at  his  hands.  But  though  he  is  free  to  bestow 
his  favours  or  to  withhold  them,  yet  he  is  not  free  to  violate  jus- 
tice and  torment  innocent  creatures  in  hell  forever,  because  this 
would  be  contrary  to  tbe  principle  of  right,  which  is  essential  to 
his  nature  and  coeval  with  his  eternal  existence. 

1  conclude,  therefore,  that  it  is  so  far  from  being  blasphemy  to 
reason  concerning  what  God  may  do,  that  it  is  evidently  blasphe* 
mous  to  insinuate,  ^  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  with  hinx 
whether  he  does  one  thing  or  another,  and  that  his  sovereign  will 
may  choose  to  do  any  thing  that  ever  was  done,  because  any  thing 
is  righteous  that  he  pleases  to  make  so."  Is  not  this  plainly 
saying  there  are  no  moral  principles  in  his  nature,  and  that  he  has 
no  regard  to  them  in  his  actions?  Did  the  prophets  or  apostles  in- 
dulge the  voluntary  humility  of  modern  times,  and  modestly  adore 
the  sovereign  pleasure,  without  presuming  to  mention  what  God 
might  do,  or  what  he  might  not?  Just  the  contrary. 

"  I  will  publish  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  says  Moses,  "  he  is 
the  rock,  his  work  his  perfect;  for  all  his  ways  are  judgment;  a 
God  of  truth,  and  without  iniquity;  just  and  right  is  he." — Deut. 
xxxii.  3,  4. 

"  Justice  and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  thy  throne:  mercy 
and  truth  shall  go  before  thy  face." — Psalm  Ixxxix.  14. 

^^  Shall  mortal  man  be  more  just  than  GodP  shall  a  man  be 
more  pure  than  his  Maker?" — Job  iv.  17. 

"  Doth  God  pervert  judgment?  or  doth  the  Almighty  pervert 
justice?  Far  be  it  from  God,  that  he  should  do  wickedness;  and 
from  the  Almighty,  that  he  should  commit  iniquity.  For  the  work 
of  a  man  shall  he  render  unto  him,  and  cause  every  man  to  find 
according  to  his  ways.  Yea,  surely  God  will  not  do  wickedly, 
neither  will  the  Almighty  pervert  judgment." — Job  viii.3. — xxxiv. 
12,  &c. 

Does  the  Lord  require  us  to  believe  that  he  might  do  wrong 
without  being  evil,  while  his  word  declares  that  "Wickedness 
proceedeth  from  the  wicked,  and  he  that  sayeth  unto  the  wicked, 
thou  art  righteous,  him  shall  the  people  curse;  nations  shall  abhpr 
tim?"  1  Sam.  xxiv.  13.  Prov.  xxiv.  34. 


290  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Faitlif'ul  Abraham,  we  are  told,  had  the  assurance  to  violate 
king  James's  "axiom  in  divinity,"  and  yet  was  never  charged  with 
blasphemy:  "And  Abraham  drew  near  and  said,  wilt  thou  also 
destroy  the  righteous  with  the  wicked?  That  be  far  from  thee  to 
do  after  this  manner,  to  slay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked;  and 
that  the  righteous  should  be  as  the  wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee. 
Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?"  Gen.  xviii.  23,  25. 


SECTION.  V. 

TJie  infinity  of  Chrisfs  atonement  considered. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  the  doctrine  defended  in  the  preceding 
pages,  supposes  it  not  necessary  for  Christ  to  render  infinite  satis- 
faction for  sin;  of  course,  that  sin  is  not  an  infinite  evil, — that  the 
divine  law  is  not  an  infinite  law, — that  sinners  do  not  deserve  infi- 
nite punishment, — and  consequently,  that  the  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation  is  true. 

Much  use,  indeed,  has  been  made  of  this  argument,  both  by  uni- 
versalists  and  by  their  opposers.  The  former  argue,  "that ^nife 
creatures  cannot  commit  an  infinite  offence,  and  therefore  cannot 
deserve  hfinite  punishment;"  whilst  the  latter  urge  with  equal 
confidence,  "that  God  being  infinite,  his  law  must  be  equally  so; 
a  breach  of  it  must  therefore  be  an  infinite  offence,  and  conse- 
qnently,  deserve  infinite  punishment."  The  one  is  considered  a 
principal  argument  in  defence  of  everlasting  punisliment,  the. 
other,  a  principal  argument  against  it:  audit  is  not  a  little  re- 
markable, that  the  same  point  [infinity]  is  the  main  pillar  of 
both  arguments,  and  seems  to  make  them  appear  equally  plausi- 
ble. 

I  cannot  help  being  of  opinion,  that  <he  conclusion  of  the  latter 
argument  is  false,  and  does  not  follow  from  the  premises,  and  that 
the  conclusion  of  the  former,  thougli  admitted,  serves  nothing  to 
the  purpose  for  which  it  has  been  so  often  brought  forward. 

The  word  infinite,  Mr.  Walker  tells  us,  signifies  "unbounded, 
unlimited,  immense.     It  is  hyperbolically  used  for  large,  great." 

Thus  it  appears,  the  word  is  used  in  two  senses,  the  one  literal, 
ihe  other  hyperbolical.     AVhen  used  as  a  hyperbole,  the  Mord  sig- 


\ 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  291 

uifies  any  thing  large  or  great;  and  in  this  sense  it  will  be  admit- 
ted on  all  sides  to  apply  to  the  atonement,  to  the  divine  law,  to  sin, 
and  to  future  punishments.  Universalists  will  very  readily  ac- 
knowledge, that  future  punishment  will  be  infinite,  if  we  explain 
ourselves  to  mean  simply  that  it  will  be  very  great;  because  this 
may  be  admitted,  and  the  everlasting  duration  of  it  be  denied  not- 
withstanding. 

The  argument  then,  to  support  the  conclusion  intended,  must 
take  the  word  in  its  literal  signification,  namely,  "unbounded,  un- 
limited,-' &c.  And  in  this  sense  I  presume  it  cannot  in  truth  be 
applied  to  any  of  the  forementioned  subjects,  but  to  God  alone. — 
To  clear  this  point  and  obviate  the  present  objection,  let  us  consi- 
der the  following  particulars: 

1.  It  is  very  evident  that  God  is  infinite,  or  unbounded  in  his 
essence,  and  no  quality  or  attribute  essential  to  his  Being,  can  be 
justly  considered  as  finite,  because  it  would  suppose  the  same  Be- 
ing is  essentially  finite  and  infinite  at  the  same  time,  which  is  a 
contradiction;  but  if  we  attribute  infinity  to  any  thing  else  but 
God,  or  that  which  is  essential  to  his  nature,  do  we  not  at  once 
suppose  there  are  more  infinite  beings  than  one  in  existence.^*  and 
what  is  this  but  to  acknowledge  several  infinite  Gods,  or,  which 
is  the  same  thing,  to  attribute  to  other  objects  the  grand  preroga- 
tive which  distinguishes  the  Almighty  from  every  other  being.^ 

2.  What  reason  have  we  to  believe  the  divine  law  is  infinite.^ 
Because  God  is  the  author  of  it.''  If  this  alone  be  a  sufficient  rea- 
son, it  will  follow  that  every  man  and  every  animal  in  the  creation 
is  infinite,  because  God  is  the  author  of  them.  Is  it  because  the 
law  is  founded  upon  the  divine  attributes,  or  is  formed  according 
to  them,  and  is  made  in  the  image  of  God.'*  AVe  are  expressly  toid 
that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God:  does  it  therefore  follow 
that  man  was  made  infinite.'  If  we  say  the  Almighty  has  ever 
made  any  infinite  things,  is  not  this  to  affirm  that  he  has  created 
Gods  like  himself,  completely  infinite  as  their  Maker.' 

Where  is  there  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible  that  declares, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  that  the  law  of  God  is  infinite.'  And 
if  there  be  no  such  passage,  whence  comes  it  (o  pass  that  many 
receive  this  hypothesis  with  so  much  confidence,  and  Ihose  too, 
who  profess  to  regulate  their  opinions  by  the  authority  of  the  Bi- 
ble alone.' 

3.  If  it  be  affirmed  that  sin  is  infinite,  it  is  desirable  for  us  to  be 
instructed  whether  each  and  every  sin  be  infinite,  or  whether  a 
number  of  sins  added  together  is  necessary  to  bring  it  up  to  infini- 


S9d  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ty.  If  the  first  be  true,  the  plain  consequence  is,  that  there  are  no 
degrees  in  sin,  either  from  its  quality  or  number:  for  we  may  se- 
lect any  particular  sin  that  ever  was  committed,  and  affirm  w  ith- 
out  fear  of  contradiction,  that  if  it  be  infinite,  it  is  equal  to  all  the 
other  sins  that  ever  were  perpetrated  in  the  universe;  for  none 
surely  will  affirm  that  the  whole  put  together  will  be  greater  than 
infinity.  This  were  to  suppose  there  are  several  infinites  of  dif- 
ferent magnitudes,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  that  a  subject  may 
be  infinite  and  finite  at  the  same  time. 

If  we  suppose  the  second,  that  single  sins  are  finite,  but  that  a 
sufficient  number  put  together  will  become  infinite,  then  it  follow^ 
that  the  addition  of  finite  things  together  will  produce  infinity, 
than  which  nothing  can  be  more  absurd.  And  besides,  if  a  certain 
number  of  sins  become  infinite,  then  we  must  suppose  that  all  sin- 
ners come  up  to  this  precise  standard,  and  no  farther,  or  that  they 
do  not;  if  they  do,  then,  to  say  nothing  of  this  flagrant  contradiction 
of  universal  experience,  the  inevitable  consequence  is,  that  the 
guilt  of  all  sinners  is  exactly  equal;  if  they  do  not,  then  some  sin- 
ners may  rise  above  the  standard,  and  their  sins  may  become  more 
than  infinite,  whilst  others  may  fall  below  the  standard,  and  then 
their  sins  are  but  finite,  and  consequently,  according  to  the  argu- 
ment, they  do  not  deserve  infinite  punishment. 

4. 1  readily  admit  the  conclusion,  and  believe  if  indubitably  true, 
that  no  sinner  ever  did  or  ever  will  deserve  infinite  punishment; 
and,  I  must  repeat  it,  this  conclusion,  when  admitted,  serves  no- 
thing to  the  purpose  for  which  it  has  been  so  often  brought  forward 
by  universalists.  This  I  hope  to  make  appear,  after  first  attempt- 
ing to  convince  all  christians  that  they  are  forced  to  admit  this 
conclusion,  or  deny  their  other  established  doctrines, 
.  All  christians,  as  far  as  I  know,  believe  that  some  sinners  de- 
serve more  punishment  than  others,  that  none  will  be  punished 
more  than  they  deserve,  and  consequently  that  there  will  be  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  punishment  in  a  future  state:  but  if  punishment 
is  necessarily  infinite  because  it  is  everlasting,  and  if  all  who  go 
to  hell  will  be  punished  everlastingly,  then  it  demonstrably  fol- 
lows, either  that  there  are  no  different  degrees  in  their  punishment 
or  that  some  of  them  will  suffer  more  or  less  than  infinite,  or  that 
one  infinite  is  greater  or  less  than  another  infinite. 

Suppose  the  punishment  to  be  everlasting:  this  does  not  prove 
it  infinite.  For  no  creature  has  an  infinite  capacity  to  suffer;  and 
to  say  tbe  punishment  is  infinite  while  the  capacity  is  finite,  is  to 
tay  a  creature  may  suffer  more  than  he  is  capable  of  suffering, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  Sas 

VVliIch  is  a  contrddictioii.  I  am  aware  of  the  evasion,  that  what  is 
finite  in  degree  may  be  infinite  in  duration.  This  supposes  the  pun* 
ishment  to  be  both  finite  and  infinite,  which  is  also  a  contradiction. 
The  duration  of  a  sinner's  punishment  is  as  far  from  being  infinite 
as  its  degree;  and  yet  that  duration  may  be  everlasting. 

Was  there  not  a  precise  point  of  time  when  his  punishment  be- 
gan.'' And  suppose  we  take  our  stand  at  any  conceivable  point  of 
future  duration,  and  look  back  at  the  point  where  any  particular 
person's  duration  began:  is  it  not  completely  finite,  limited  and 
measurable,  as  any  thing  that  can  be  imagined.?  And  will  it  not 
always  be  finite,  limited  and  measurable,  which  infinity  cannot  beP 
Will  it  be  said  it  is  infinite,  because  it  is  always  enlarging?  Nay, 
this  is  the  very  thing  that  proves  the  duration  to  be  finite;  because 
infinity  cannot  be  enlarged.  If  we  say  a  creature's  duration  is  infi- 
nite because  it  is  perpetually  enlarging,  then  the  duration  of  a  day 
or  an  hour  is  infinite;  for  our  time  was  as  regularly  enlarging  du- 
ring the  first  hour  of  our  lives,  as  it  ever  will  be. 

Suppose  a  person  in  an  immense  or  boundless  plain,  to  commence 
at  any  given  point,  and  travel  as  regularly  as  our  time  has  elapsed 
from  the  moment  we  were  born:  how  far  must  he  travel  before 
his  journey  would  become  infinite?  It  is  evident  that  after  mil- 
lions of  ages,  the  extent  of  his  progress,  though  great,  would  be 
as  completely  finite,  and  subject  to  mensuration,  as  it  was  when 
he  had  advanced  but  a  single  mile.  And  no  argument  can  be  ofl:er- 
«d  to  prove  that  his  journey  will  ever  be  infinite,  but  what  would 
equally  prove  it  was  so  during  the  first  mile,  or  even  the  sixtieth 
part  of  that  distance.  Nothing  ever  will  be  infinite  but  what  al- 
ways was  so;  and  it  is  very  obvious  that  boundless  or  infinite  dura- 
tion belongs  to  God  alone,  who  is  the  only  being  whose  existence 
never  had  a  beginning,  and  therefore  the  only  one  who  properly 
inhabiteth  eternity. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  neither  the  happiness  or  misery  of  any 
finite  creature  can  ever  be  infinite  either  in  degree  or  duration.— 
Not  in  degree,  because  no  creature  has  an  infinite  capacity;  not  in 
duration,  because  the  existence  of  every  creature  had  a  beginning, 
and  therefore  can  no  more  be  enlarged  into  infinity,  than  a  mau 
ean  be  changed  into  a  God. 

It  is  far  from  my  purpose  to  enter  into  the  controversy  respect- 
ing eternal  punishments,  a  controversy  replete  with  presumptuous 
conjectures,  seldom  productive  of  any  good  eftects  upon  the  hu- 
man mind,  and  too  often  pernicious  in  its  tendency:  but  it  ap- 
peared necessary  to  give  a  brief  statement  of  these  arguments,  to 


294  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

show  that  we  are  under  no  necessity  of  assuming  the  hypothesis, 
that  sin  is  infinite,  to  avoid  admitting  the  doctrine  of  a  restoration 
from  hell.  And  as  to  an  infinite  atonement,  of  which  so  much  has 
been  said,  it  is  a  position  not  derived  from  any  part  of  the  oracles 
of  God;  and  I  know  not  what  good  has  been  obtained  for  man- 
kind by  this  gratuitous  addition  to  the  scripture  doctrine  of  our  re- 
demption. 

That  the  atonement  made  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  abun- 
dantly sufficient  to  accomplish  every  end  intended,  is  very  clear; 
but  whether  it  be  called  infinite  or  not,  is  a  matter,  1  apprehend, 
which  affects  not  the  doctrine  of  the  presejit  essay,  as  might  easi- 
ly be  evinced  were  it  necessary.  That  our  Hedeemer  is  God  over 
all,  blessed  forever;  and  that  aone  but  God  could  possibly  ransom 
the  guilty,  has  been  already  stated,  and  the  reasons  advanced, 
which  need  not  be  repeated;  but  whatever  denomination  we  give 
to  this  atonement,  it  is  sufficient  for  us  to  know,  that  it  displayed 
the  full  glory  of  God,  and  secured  the  dignity  and  perfect  influ- 
ence of  his  government,  in  the  grant  of  pardon  to  penitent  sinners. 


SECTION  VI. 

A  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  reply  to  the  charge, 
that  our  system  denies  it. 

It  may  be  said,  "The  plan  of  redemption  defended  in  these 
pages,  by  denying  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  his 
righteousness  to  us,  implies  that  Adam's  sin  was  not  imputed  to 
his  posterity,  and  thus  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  contradict- 
ed, and  we  find  ourselves  in  the  heart  oi' Arianism,  making  rapid 
strides  to  infidelity." 

This  objection  deserves  a  full  and  particular  answer,  that  we 
may  avoid  the  alarming  charge  of  Arianism.  We  ought  to  avoid 
the  doctrine  of  Arians  and  Socinians,  so  far  as  they  are  erroneous; 
if  they  should  happen  to  be  right  in  any  thing,  it  is  to  be  hoped 
we  will  not  reject  any  part  of  the  truth,  and  run  into  delusion,  for 
fear  of  being  called  by  such  a  frightful  name. 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  the  fall,  we  believe,  (1.)  That  Adam  was 
the  general  representative  of  his  posterity.  (3.)  That  we  derive 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  295 

from  him  a  nature  that  is  depraved,  and  prone  to  evil  contiBually. 
(3.)  That  all  mankind  are  subject  to  sufferings  and  death,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  original  apostacy. 

1.  He  was  the  general  representative  of  his  posterity.  By  this 
W€  mean  that  the  blessings  of  Paradise  were  given  to  him  and  his 
posterity,  on  condition  of  his  obedience  to  the  command  of  God. 
Had  he  stood  upright,  every  man  born  of  a  woman  would  have 
been  a  native  heir  to  the  blessing  of  that  happy  state;  but  by  dis- 
obedience the  whole  was  forfeited,  and  his  posterity  are  involved 
in  the  conset^uences  of  that  forfeiture:  hence,  "man  that  is  born  of 
a  woman  is  of  few  days,  and  full  of  trouble.  He  cometh  forth  like 
a  flower,  and  is  cut  down:  he  fleeth  also  as  a  shadow,  and  conti- 
nueth  not." — Job.  xiv.  1,  2. 

When  the  actions  or  decisions  of  one  man  are  not  confined  to 
himself,  but  thousands  will  be  affected  by  his  good  or  bad  conduct, 
he  is  said  to  be  the  representative  of  those  whose  interests  and 
welfare  depend  upon  his  decisions.  Thus  we  call  the  members  of 
congress  and  of  the  state  legislatures  our  representatives,  because 
we  and  our  posterity  will  be  affected  by  their  otHcial  acts,  whether 
they  be  good  or  bad.  But  if  our  nation  should  be  involved  in  mise- 
ry and  ruin,  by  the  bad  conduct  of  our  representatives,  as  we  all 
have  been  by  the  bad  conduct  of  our  first  representative,  I  hope 
no  one  would  conclude  that  our  children  would  really  be  to  blame 
for  what  was  done  by  the  national  authority  before  they  were  born. 
Shall  we  infer,  that  because  they  have  to  share  in  the  consequen- 
ces of  their  rulers' actions,  they  equally  share  in  the  guilt  thereof? 
If  so,  how  do  we  prove  a  representative  to  be  a  highly  responsible 
character.'^  If  posterity  bear  the  responsibility  in  the  same  propor- 
tion that  they  are  involved  in  the  consequences,  it  is  very  evident 
that  the  individual  representative  is  no  more  culpable  for  the 
wrong  direction  of  his  public  actions,  than  he  would  be  if  he 
acted  for  himself  alone. 

We  say,  for  example,  that  Adam  was  highly  responsible,  and 
there  was  a  great  degree-  of  guilt  in  his  disobedience,  because  so 
many  millions  are  affected  by  it.  Then  we  turn  about  and  say 
these  millions  are  affected  by  it  because  they  themselves  are  guilty. 
It  would  be  unjust,  we  conclude,  for  them  to  suffer,  being  innocent, 
or  to  suffer  more  than  their  guilt  deserves;  therefore  so  far  as 
they  are  involved  in  misery,  so  far  they  are  guilty.  Now  who  does 
not  see  that  we  suppose  them  involved  in  no  consequences,  but 
those  in  which  their  own  guilt  has  involved  them.!*  and  consequent- 
ly that  their  supposed  federal  head  is  no  more  culpable  for  his 


296  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

public  actions,  than  he  would  be  if  he  acted  only  as  a  private  indi« 
vidual.  It  is  true,  that  the  acts  of  representatives  are,  by  a  tigurej 
transferred  to  the  nation,  and  are  called  the  acts  of  the  Ameri- 
cans, or  the  conduct  of  the  French  or  British  nation;  but  every 
man  of  common  judgment  understands  such  expressions,  not  in  a. 
literal,  but  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  knows  that  no  man  is  really 
culpable  for  the  obnoxious  acts  of  any  government,  but  those  whose 
will  was  employed  in  the  matter,  or  who  approved  of  the  conduct 
of  the  rulers. 

The  sin  of  Adam,  is.  by  a  like  figure,  called  the  sin  of  the  world, 
or  the  original  apostacy  of  the  human  race;  because  the  whole  race 
were  represented  by  Adam,  derive  inherent  propensities  to  evil 
from  him,  and  feel  the  temporary  consequences  of  his  fall.  If  our 
opponents  mean  nothing  more  than  this,  when  they  say  Adam's  sin 
is  imputed  to  his  posterity,  we  are  agreed.  If  when  they  say  all 
men  are  born  sinners,  or  that  we  are  a  Micked  race,  they  Mould  be 
understood  in  the  same  sense  as  those  who  say  the  English  or 
French  are  an  unjust  and  a  haughty  nation,  there  is  no  cause  of 
dispute  between  us.  Weallknow  that  the  infants  of  Europe  are  not 
really  to  blame  for  the  present  acts  of  their  councils,  or  for  the 
wrong  conduct  of  any  unrighteous  king  or  emperor.  In  like  man- 
ner, we  know  that  Ave  and  our  children  are  not  really  guilty  of  any 
crime  that  was  committed  in  Paradise. 

2.  We  all  derive  from  Mama  nature  prone  to  evil  contimialli/. 
This  melancholy  truth  is  confirmed  by  universal  experience. 
Many  good  men  have  established  it  by  arguments  drawn  from  the 
operations  of  human  nature,  and  the  man  must  be  a  great  stranger 
to  himself,  who  is  under  the  necessity  of  going  out  of  his  own  soul 
for  evidence  of  this  internal  and  native  degeneracy.  We  are  na- 
turally inclined  to  do  wrong,  and  to  become  enemies  of  all  right- 
eousness. This  truth  has  been  so  often  proved,  and  indeed  it  is  so 
evident  from  the  experience  and  history  of  all  mankind,  that  it  is 
almost  incredible  that  any  person  should  seriously  call  it  in  ques- 
tion for  a  moment.  Taking  the  fact  for  granted,  let  us  inquire,  as 
others  have  done  before  us,  how  is  this  fact  to  be  accounted  for? 

Is  this  original  inclination  or  propensity  to  do  wrong  a  natural 
or  a.penal  consequence  of  Adam's  transgression.'^  That  it  is  a  na- 
tural eftect  of  sin,  appears  evident  from  the  three  foUoMing  con- 
siderations: First,  it  M  as  not  contained  in  the  original  threateniugj 
and  therefore  was  no  part  of  the  penalty:  God  never  said  "In  the 
day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely"  have  strong  propen- 
sities to  sin,  but  "thou  shalt  surely  die."  This,  we  grant, may  imply 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  2^ 

the  loss  of  spiritual  life  as  well  as  natural;  but  is  there  no  medium 
between  the  loss  of  spiritual  life,  and  the  acquiring  of  innate  pro- 
pensities to  sin?  Spiritual  life,  I  am  apt  to  think,  consists  in  a  cou- 
seiousuess  of  the  presence  and  the  love  of  God.  None  Avill  deny 
that  it  was  possible  for  this  to  have  been  withdrawn  from  Adam 
before  he  fell,  and  whatever  is  possible  may  be  supposed  for  the 
sake  of  argument:  let  us  suppose  then,  that  God  had  for  certain 
purposes  taken  away  (or  withdrawn)  Adam's  spiritual  life,  while 
he  stood  in  a  state  of  iunocenee;  will  any  one  say  he  would  imme- 
diately, and  of  necessity  have  felt  strong  propensities  to  sin?  I 
rather  think  he  would  have  felt  a  strong  inclination  to  pray,  and 
to  seek  that  life  again,  which  was  the  suppoi't  of  his  happiness, 
and  the  principal  source  of  his  tranquillity. 

Secondly,  to  say  such  propensities  are  not  natural  effects  of  sin, 
is  to  suppose  that  Adam,  after  his  rebellion,  had  no  evil  propen- 
sity in  his  nature,  till  God  executed  the  penalty  upon  him:  and 
moreover,  that  he  might  have  continued  multiplying  his  crimes  to 
the  present  day,  without  contracting  any  evil  bias,  provided  God 
had  suffered  him  to  pass,  without  executing  the  sentence  of  the  law 
upon  him;  because  sin,  of  itself,  is  supposed  to  do  no  manner  of 
harm  to  the  sinner,  but  to  leave  him  in  quiet  possession  of  all  his 
internal  rectitude  and  felicity,  till  the  hand  of  God  implants  evil 
dispositions  in  him,  as  a  punishment  of  his  crimes!  Shall  we  repre- 
sent wickedness  as  a  perfectly  harmless  thing,  that  we  may  have 
the  pleasure  of  charging  God  with  all  the  disorder  and  misery 
there  is  in  the  universe?  It  is  evident  from  the  word  of  God,  that 
Adam  had  strong  propensities  to  evil,  to  run  away  and  hide  him- 
self from  his  Maker — to  excuse  and  justify  himself — to  cast  the 
blame  on  his  partner — and  to  insinuate  that  God  ought  not  to  have 
given  her  to  him: — and  all  this  happened  immediately  after  his 
transgression,  before  God  had  pronounced  any  curse  against  him, 
much  less  executed  it:  a  clear  proof  that  the  moral  disorders  of  his 
nature  were  produced  by  himself,  as  the  natural  and  necessary 
consequence  of  his  voluntary  wickedness  and  apostacy. 

Thirdly,  the  truth  I  defend  is  confirmed  by  universal  experience: 
every  sinner  in  the  world  knows,  or  may  know,  that  his  actual 
sins  regularly  tend  to  increase  the  strength  of  his  evil  habits  and 
propensities.  As  we  know  this  to  be  the  nature  of  sin  in  our  days, 
and  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  why  suppose  it  had  another  nature 
in  the  days  of  Adam?  Why  contradict  the  bible,  which  so  clearly 
exhibits  the  state  of  his  mind,  before  any  curse  or  penalty  was  ex- 
deuted  upon  him?  1  know  it  may  be  said,  God  executed  the  sen- 


398  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

tence  on  him,  the  very  moment  after  he  sinned,  by  taking  away  his 
spiritual  life;  but  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  of  it  in  the  bible 
or  any  where  else.  It  is  an  easy  thing  to  form  an  hypothesis;  but 
there  is  no  evidence  whatever,  of  any  act  of  God  to  manifest  his 
displeasure  against  the  first  sin,  till  after  Adam  and  Eve  attempted 
to  hide  themselves  among  the  trees  of  the  garden.  If  the  loss  of 
spiritual  life  was  a  natural  effect  of  the  apostacy,  it  is  true  that 
it  immediately  followed  the  transgression;  but  if  it  was  a  penal 
consequence,  we  demand  proof  that  any  penalty  was  executed  till 
after  God  pronounced  the  curse  upon  Adam,  before  which  time  he 
had  surely  manifested  strong  propensities  to  sin. 

As  we  know  by  experience,  that  actual  sin  produces  an  evil  bias 
in  the  mind,  and  tends  to  confirm  and  strengthen  our  native  prone- 
ness  to  do  wrong;  we  have  all  the  evidence  that  the  nature  of  the 
subject  can  admit  or  require,  that  Adam  contracted  similar  dispo- 
sitions, as  the  immediate  effects  of  his  transgression:  and  as  the 
goodness  of  God  spared  him  to  multiply  his  kind,  we  are  all  born 
in  a  disordered  state,  because  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  propa- 
gate any  other  nature  than  his  own. 

It  remains  for  us  to  inquire,  m  hether  this  natural  propensity  to 
evil  is  in  itself  a  sin.^  That  it  is  the  effect  of  sin,  and  inclines  the 
mind  to  the  practice  of  it,  is  too  evident  to  admit  of  controversy; 
but  whether  it  be  proper  to  denominate  that  to  be  sin,  which  exists 
in  us,  prior  to  all  moral  or  voluntary  actions,  is  not  so  evident.  St. 
Paul's  definition  of  sin  is,  that  it  is  the  transgression  of  the  law. 
Mr.  Wesley  puts  in  two  explanatory  words,  and  defines  sin  to  be 
«a  voluntary  transgression  of  a  knoivn  law."  By  comparing  this 
with  the  state  of  infants,  we  shall  find  they  are  not  sinners  in  the 
sense  of  those  definitions:  but  the  term,  sin,  is  sometimes  applied 
to  the  effects  of  it,  according  to  the  following  statements  of  Mr. 
Cruden;  speaking  of  sin,  he  says,  "It  is  taken  (1.)  for  original 
corruption,  or  the  depravity  and  naughtiness  of  our  corrupt  na- 
ture, which  is  prone  to  all  evil.  Psal.  li.  5.  (2.)  For  actual  sin, 
which  flows  from  the  corruption  of  nature.  Jam.  i.  15.  (3.)  It  is 
taken  for  the  guilt  and  defilement  of  sin.  Psal.  li.  2.  (4.)  For 
the  punishment  of  sin.  Gen.  iv.  7.  (5.)  Sin  is  taken  both  for  the 
guilt  and  punishment  of  sin.  Psal.  xxxii.  1.  (6.)  The  name  of  sin 
is  often  given  to  the  sacrifice  of  expiation,  or  to  the  sacrifice  for 
sin.  Lev.  iv.  3,  25,  29.  What  is  there  rendered  sin-offering,  is  in 
Hebrew,  sin.  2  Cor.  v.  21." 

Taking  the  word  in  this  latitude  of  meaning,  it  is  certain  that 
it  may  in  one  sense,  namely,  the  first  mentioned  by  Mr.  Cruden, 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  299 

be  applied  to  all  infants.  We  may  very  confidently  say,  they  are 
all  born  in  sin,  and  have  sin  in  them,  provided  we  carefully  dis- 
tinguish the  different  senses  in  which  the  word  is  taken,  and  apply 
it  to  infants,  only  as  signifying  "original  corruption,  or  the  de- 
pravity and  naughtiness  of  our  corrupt  nature,  which  is  prone  to 
all  evil."  If  we  confound  those  different  meanings  of  the  word, 
and  speak  of  all  men  being  born  sinners,  leaving  the  world  to  un- 
derstand us  as  speaking  of  sin,  projierly  so  called,  we  shall  inad- 
vertently countenance  the  old  merciless  hypothesis,  "that  there 
are  infants  in  hell  not  a  span  long."  A  sentiment  this,  which 
some  bold  professors  have  had  the  eflTrontery  to  avow,  but  which 
our  opponents  generally  either  disbelieve,  or  are  ashamed  openly 
to  acknowledge. 

Let  us  inquire,  in  the  next  place,  whether  we  have  proper  au- 
thority to  consider  infants  as  guilty  creatures.  Dr.  J.  defines 
guilt  to  be  ^^an  obligation  to  suffer  punishment  for  sin.^^* 

If  by  an  obligation  t»  sutler,  he  means  deserving  to  suffer,  or 
tha.i  justice  requires  it  of  them,  the  definition,  I  think,  is  perfectly 
correct,  provided  he  takes  the  word  sin  according  to  St.  Paul's  ac- 
count of  it  when  he  says  sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law.  A  guilty 
person  deserves  to  suffer  a  certain  penalty:  why?  because  he  has  vo- 
luntarily transgressed  a  known  law,  that  was  given  him  by  just  au- 
thority. To  say  a  person  is  guilty  who  never  committed  a  crime,  is 
to  say  he  is  gmliy  of  nothing, a.iid  iha.t  criminality  a.ut\  guilt  have  no 
necessary  relation  to  each  other.  After  a  jury  have  investigated  a 
charge  presented  to  them,  they  bring  in  their  verdict,  guilty  or  not 
guilty:  when  they  decide  that  the  prisoner  is  guilty,  every  man  of 
common  sense  understands  them  to  mean,  that  he  has  perpetrated 
some  act,  which  is  criminal,  and  deserves  punishment.  If  they  de- 
termine that  he  is  not  guilty,  we  understand  them  to  mean  that  he 
did  not  commit  the  unlauful  act,  and  therefore  is  no  criminal,  and 
deserves  no  punishment. 

There  are  many  degrees  of  guilt,  it  is  true,  and  one  person  may 
be  more  guilty  than  another;  but  guilt,  in  every  degree  of  it,  is  in- 
separable from  some  criminal  action,  knowingly  and  willingly 
performed  by  the  guilty  person.  Did  any  jury  ever  find  a  medium 
between  being  guilty  and  not  guilty.^  Did  they  ever  decide  that  the 
prisoner  is  neither  guilty  not  innocent,  or  that  he  is  guilty  and  not 
guilty  at  the  same  time.?  If  they  were  to  say  that  the  prisoner  is 
clear  of  having  done  the  action  charged  upon  him,  but  is  neverthe- 


See  Mr.  Wesley's  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 


800  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

less  guilty  of  the  charge,  would  we  admire  the  wisdom  and  equi- 
ty of  their  decision,  or  hiss  their  verdict  out  of  the  world,  as  a  con- 
tradiction, shocking  to  the  common  judgment  and  conscience  of 
all  mankind? 

The  thing  we  mean  by  a  person's  being  guilty  is,  that  he  has 
''knowingly  and  willingly  broken  a  law  which  he  had  power  ta 
keep,  and  the  observance  of  which  he  knew  to  be  enjoined  on  him 
by  proper  authority:  and  that  he  therefore  deserves  punishment.'' 
If  there  be  any  other  kind  of  guilt,  I  would  gladly  be  informed  of 
its  nature;  for  I  have  never  yet  been  able  to  conceive  any  other 
kind.  I  have  somewhere  seen  a  definition  given  in  these  words: 
"Being  liable  to  suffer  on  account  of  sin."  The  word  liable,  in  thi» 
sentence,  is  subject  to  some  ambiguity:  it  may  mean  a  person's  de- 
serving to  suffer  on  account  of  his  own  sin,  and  then  it  is  the  same 
with  the  definition  above  given;  or  it  may  signify  the  being  expo- 
sed to  punishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of  others.  If  guilt  consist 
in  being  liable  to  suffer  on  account  of  another's  sin,  it  will  indeed 
follow  inevitably  that  infants  are  guilty,  or  else  that  their  suffer- 
ings do  not  come  upon  them  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  The  latter 
is  not  pretended,  and  therefore  we  must  admit  the  conclusion,  or 
refute  the  definition  from  which  it  follows.  This  leads  us  to  our 
third  proposition. 

3.  All  mankind  are  subject  (or  liable)  to  sufferings  and  tempo- 
ral death  in  consequence  of  the  original  apostacy. 

This  fact  is  undeniable,  and  is  admitted  by  christians  almost 
universally.  Our  opponents  think  it  impossible  for  us  to  believe  it, 
without  admitting  the  consequence,  that  infants  are  guilty.  Why? 
because  guilt  consists  in  being  in  any  way  liable  to  suflfer  on  ac- 
count of  sin.  This  is  taken  for  granted;  and  we  demand  of  I  hem  to 
produce  evidence  of  its  truth  from  reason  or  revelation.  Admitting 
it  to  be  true,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  must  take  these  conse- 
quences along  with  us:  (1.)  that  when  the  heathen  emperor  caused 
hundreds  of  the  primitive  christians  to  be  murdered,  under  pre- 
tence that  they  set  fire  to  the  city  of  Rome,  a  crime  which  he  him- 
self is  said  to  have  perpetrated;  those  christians  were  really  guil- 
ty, because  they  suftered  on  account  of  sin.  (2.)  When  sin  was  first 
introduced  in  God's  creation,  it  injured  innocent  creatures,  and 
made  them  suffer,  or  it  did  not;  if  it  did  not,  it  follows  that  this 
enormous  evilwhich  deserves  everlasting  damnation,  was  perfectly 
inoffensive  in  its  nature  and  tendency,  and  did  no  harm  to  any 
living  creature;  if  it  did,  then  those  innocent  creatures  wer« 
guilty,  because  they  suffered  on  account  of  sin.  (3.)  AH  the  beasts 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  301 

ef  the  earth,  and  the  fowls  of  heaven,  and  the  fishes  of  the  sea, 
are  guilty  creatures  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  their  sufterings  are 
not  on  account  of  sin.  (l.)  Lastly,  Tlie  Lord  Jesus  Christ  liimself 
was  a  guilty  creature,  according  to  this  definition,  and  it  seems 
that  nothing  saves  the  very  trees  of  the  forest,  or  the  rocks  of  the 
mountains  from  being  guilty,  but  their  incapacity  to  suft'er. 

The  last  consequence  is  admitted  by  our  opponents,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  was  in  some  sort  guilty,  by  imputation,  and  Luther 
called  him  the  greatest  sinner  in  the  world;  but  I  never  heard 
that  x\dam's  sin  was  imputed  to  the  quadrupeds  and  the  fowls, 
though  it  is  almost  universally  acknowledged  that  they  suffer  and 
die  in  consequence  of  the  original  apostaey.  The  imputation  must 
be  kept  up  in  three  particular  cases,  it  seems,  however  others  may 
be  spared.  (1.)  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity. 
(2.)  The  imputation  of  all  our  sins  to  Christ.  (;3.)  The  imputatioa 
of  Christ's  righteojisness  to  us. 

We  are  perfectly  willing  and  desirous  to  understand  this  doc^ 
trine,  and  to  examine  whatever  evidence  may  be  advanced  in  its 
support.  I,  for  one,  am  greatly  at  a  loss  to  comprehend  the  mean- 
ing of  this  doctrine  of  imputation.  I  often  find  it  stated,  that 
Adam's  sin  was  in  some  sort  imputed  to  his  posterity;  that  our  sins 
were  in  some  sense  imputed  to  Christ,  and  the  like.  In  what  sense 
they  mean,  is  hard  to  determine.  The  word  occurs  sometimes 
in  scripture;  but  I  fiud  it  applied  to  faith,  more  than  to  Adam  or  to 
Christ;  and  it  commonly  means  nothing  more  than  forgiving  our 
sins,  and  accepting  us  in  Christ  in  consequence  of  our  believing. 
"Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven,  whose  sin  is  cover- 
ed. Blessed  is  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity, 

and   in  whose    spirit   there  is   no  guile." Psal.  xxxii.  1,  2.— 

"For  we  say  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteous- 
ness. Now,  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was 
imputed  to  him;  but  for  us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if 
we  believe  on  him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead." 
Rom.  iv.  9,  23.  Thus  it  .appears  that  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  accepted  instead  of  spotless  righteousness;  that  is,  when 
we  believe,  our  sins  are  forgiven,  and  we  are  accepted  as  though 
we  had  never  sinned,  because  the  goodness  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ 
is  such,  that  he  no  longer  demands  the  spotless  and  uninterrupt- 
ed righteousness  which  the  old  covenant  demanded,  but  gracious- 
ly imputes  or  reckons  faith  unto  us  for  righteousness. 
.  Tlie  bible  no  where  says  that  Adam's  sin  was  imputed  to  his 
posterity;  and  we  would  gladly  kn^w  how  the  matter  is  to  be  un- 
derstood. 

Q  q 


30;3  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Is  the  act  of  breaking  God's  law  in  paradise  imputed  to  the 
men  of  this  generation?  We  were  guilty  of  that  act,  or  we  were 
not;  if  we  were,  we  acted,  and  broke  the  laws  of  God,  some  thou- 
sands of  years  before  we  were  born;  if  we  were  not,  to  impute  it 


Will  it  be  granted  that  we  are  clear  of  the  criminal  act,  and 
yet  be  maintained  that  the  guilt  of  it  is  imputed  to  us?  Does  tkis 
mean  that  we  are  not  guilty  of  the  crime,  but  are  guilty  of  the 
guilt?  If  so,  we  are  as  fiir  out  at  sea  as  ever,  and  the  subject  is 
truly  a  profound  mystery^  almost  equal  to  that  of  transubstantia- 
tion. 

That  Adam's  sin  may  be  figuratively  imputed  to  us,  as  the  acts 
of  the  English  Parliament  are  imputed  to  the  British  nation,  is 
readily  admitted,  because  Adam  was  our  representative,  and  we 
are  involved  in  the  eS'eetsof  his  had  conduct;  but  this  does  not  con- 
stitute us  guilty,  in  any  intelligible  sense  of  the  expression. 

I  am  apt  to  think  our  opponents  themselves,  when  they  come  to 
explain  themselves,  mean  no  more  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin, 
but  that  we  are  involved  in  the  natural  consequences  of  it:  at  least, 
if  they  mean  any  thing  else,  they  seem  unable  to  tell  us  what  they 
mean. 

Mr.  Wesley  gives  extracts  from  Dr.  Watt's  and  Mr.  Hebdeu 
upon  this  subject,  in  which  we  find  the  following  explanation  of 
the  doctrine  in  question. 

"  When  a  man  has  broken  the  law  of  his  country,  and  is  pun- 
ished for  so  doing,  it  is  plain,  that  sin  is  imputed  to  him;  his  wick- 
edness is  upon  him;  he  bears  his  iniquity;  that  is,  he  is  reputed  or 
accounted  guilty:  He  is  condemned  and  dealt  with  as  an  offen- 
der. 

"On  the  other  hand,  if  an  innocent  man,  who  is  falsely  accused, 
is  acquitted  by  the  court,  sin  is  not  imputed  to  him,  but  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  him;  or,  to  use  another  phrase,  his  right- 
eousness is  upon  liim. 

"Farther,  if  a  man  has  committed  a  crime,  but  (he  prince  par- 
dons him,  then  he  is  justified  from  it;  and  his  fault  is  not  imputed 
to  him. 

"But  if  a  man  hating  committed  treason  his  estate  is  taken 
from  him  and  his  children,  then  they  bear  the  iniquity  of  their 
father,  and  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them  also. 

"But  it  may  be  asked,  how  can  the  acts  of  the  parent's  treason 
be  imputed  to  his  little  child?  since  those  acts  were  quite  out  of 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  S03 

the  reach  of  an  infant,  nor  was  it  possible  for  him  to  commit 
them. 

«  I  answer,  (1.)  Those  acts  of  treason  or  acts  of  service, are  by 
a  common  figure,  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  children,  when  they 
suffer  or  enjoy  the  consequences  of  their  father's  treason  or  emi- 
nent service:  though  the  particular  actions  of  treason  or  service 
could  not  be  practised  hy  the  children.  This  would  easily  be  un- 
derstood, should  it  occur  in  an  human  history.  And  why  not,  when 
it  occurs  in  the  sacred  writings?" 

Thus  far  our  author's  account  of  the  matter  is  clear  and  intelli- 
gible: It  is  only  "by  a  common  figure"  that  "those  acts  of  treason 
or  acts  of  service  are  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  children:  And 
why  not,  when  it  occurs  in  the  sacred  writings?"  But  he  pro- 
ceeds: 

"I  answer,  (3.)  Bin  is  taken  either  for  an  act  of  disobedience  to 
a  law,  or  for  the  legal  result  of  such  an  act;  that  is,  the  guilt,  or 
liableness  to  punishment.  Now  when  we  say  the  sin  of  a  traitor 
is  imputed  to  his  children,  we  do  not  mean,  that  the  act  of  the 
father  is  charged  upon  the  child:  but  that  the  guilt  or  liableness 
to  punishment  is  so  transferred  to  him,  that  he  sulfers  banishment 
or  poverty  on  account  of  it."* 

It  is  true,  "  If  a  man  having  committed  treason,  his  estate  is 
taken  froi»  him  and  his  children,"  the  children  suffer  privation  or 
"  poverty  on  account  of  it;"  but  no  man  in  his  right  mind  believes 
they  are  really  guilty  of  treason,  because  they  are  liable  to  suffer  on 
account  of  their  father's  crimes.  If  his  fault  is  "said  to  be  imputed 
to  the  children,"  it  is  only  "by  a  common  figure,"  and  is  not  lite- 
rally understood,  as  though  the  children  Mere  really  involved  in 
the  father's  guilt,  because  from  their  peculiar  relation  to  him  they 
have  to  endure  the  consequences.  Were  children  ever  made  res- 
ponsible to  any  government  for  their  fathers  treason?  Were  they 
ever  accused  of  his  crime,  and  pronounced  guilty,  by  the  judicial 
authority  of  the  nation?  I  presume  not:  and  neither  are  the  chil- 
dren of  Adam  pronounced  guilty  of  his  crime,  in  any  part  of  the 
oracles  of  God. 

But  "guilt,"  and  a  "liableness  to  punishment,"  are  by  our 
author  considered  as  synonymous:  if  he  really  mean  that  all  the 
beasts  of  the  creation  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  because  they  are 
liable  to  punishment,  let  him  openly  declare  it;  and  we  will  pa- 
tiently attend  to  the  arguments  or  scriptures  by  which  such  a 
curious  opinion  is  to  be  supported. 


See  "The  doctrine  of  original  sin,"  8cc.  page  38i,  &c. 


30*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

The  guilt  of  Adam's  children  is  inferred  from  two  passages  of 
gcrjptiire,  one  is,  that  "we  were  all  Ijy  ii:it  ^e  children  of  wrath," 
and  the  other,  ''that  judgment  has  come  upon  all  men  unto  con. 
demnafion." 

That  ivraih,  or  God's  displeasure  against  sin,  has  come  upon 
human  nature,  and  even  upon  animal  nature  universally,  is  most 
evident;  the  very  ground  has  been  cursed  for  Adam's  sake;  but  this 
is  no  proof  fhat  the  ground  is  g-uiUj/:  because  though  the  words 
curse,  wrath  and  condemnation  commonly  signify  an  execution  of 
the  Sfiiteuee  which  iuslice  requires,  yet  the  words  are  sometimes 
applied,  not  to  the  guilty  person  only,  but  to  other  creatures  or 
objeefs,  which  in  some  way  stand  related  to  him,  and  which  are 
cursed  for  his  sake,  and  not  for  their  own.  '^Cursed  is  the  ground 
for  thy  sake.  Gen.  iii.  17.  Therefore  is  your  land  a  desolation  and 
a  curse,  at  this  day.  Jer.  xliv.  22.  1  Mill  curse  your  blessings;  yea, 
I  have  cursed  them  already.  Mai.  ii.  2.  Master,  behold  the  fig- 
tree  which  thou  cursedst  is  witliered  away.  Mark.  xi.  21.  At  his 
wrath  the  earth  shall  tremble  Jer.  x.  10.  I  saw  the  tents  of  Cushan 
in  affliction:  and  the  curtains  of  the  land  of  Midian  did  tremble. 
■^Vas  tlie  Lord  displeased  against  the  rivers.^  was  thine  anger 
against  the  rivers.^  was  thy  wrath  against  the  sea,  that  thou  didst 
ride  upon  thine  horses,  and  thy  chariots  of  salvation.^"  Hab.  iii. 
7,  8. 

"  By  one  man's  offence,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  con- 
demnation." Rom.  v.  18.  This  alludes  to  the  condemnation  which 
came  upon  Adam  when  he  was  driven  out  of  the  garden,  and  sub- 
jected to  labour,  misery  and  death.  Human  nature  was  thus  con- 
demned, and  this  judgment  has  certainly  come  upon  all  men,  on 
account  of  their  relation  to  their  original  representative.  But 
■when  the  judgments  of  God  come  upon  a  people,  do  they  fall  on 
none  but  those  who  are  guilty  of  the  crime  for  which  the  judg- 
ments were  sent.^  When  the  judgment  of  God  sent  fire  and  brim- 
stone upon  Sodom  for  the  abominations  of  that  people,  will  any  one 
say  that  the  infants  of  that  city  were  guilty  of  the  crimes  which 
brought  down  fire  from  heaven,  and  consumed  them.^'  1  presume  no 
person  will  be  disposed  to  say  so:  and  yet  it  is  evident  the  judg- 
ment came  upon  them,  and  they  '^were  children  of  this  wrath  eveii 
as  others." 

What  shall  we  say  of  those  days  of  wretchedness,  at  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  such  as  have  not  been  before  and  shall  not  be 
again?"For  these  be  the  days  of  vengeance,  that  all  things  which 
are  written  may  be  fulfilled.  But   woe  unto   them  that  are  witfe 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  305 

child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck,  in  those  days!  for  there  shall  be 
great  distress  in  the  land,  and  wrath  upon  this  people."  Luke.  xxi. 
22.  When  the  Lord  Jesus  pronounced  this  woe,  a  word  which  fre- 
quently signifies  a  sentence  of  condemnation,  did  he  mean  that  the 
mothers  or  their  infant  children  were  cursed  in  a  peculiar  sense, 
as  being  uncommonly  guilty?  Were  the  infants  of  the  Jewish  na- 
tion guilty  of  "crucifying  the  Lord  of  glory,"  or  of  tlie  other  crimes 
^vhich  brought  misery  and  destruction  upon  them.^  The  Jews  said, 
"His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children;"  and  it  is  evident  the  pe- 
culiar judgments  which  were  sent  on  account  of  this  crime,  fell  on 
their  children,  as  well  as  themselves.  Were  the  children  there- 
fore guilty.^  or  shall  we  say  the  beasts  and  fowls  which  shared  in 
the  general  misery,  had  the  crimes  of  the  high-priest,  and  of  the 
pharisees,  imputed  to  them.^  Thousands  who  knew  not  their  right 
hand  from  their  left  were  involved  in  the  scene  of  wretchedness, 
which  was  brought  on  by  the  wickedness  of  the  Jews,  and  which 
cur  Saviour  calls  vengeance,  and  wrath  upon  this  people.  The  in- 
fants in  Jerusalem,  therefore,  though  they  never  crucified  the  Sa- 
viour, nor  gave  their  consent  to  it,  uor  had  it  imputed  to  them, 
were  nevertheless  subjected  to  the  general  ''judgment  unto  con- 
demnation, and  were  (by  birth,  or  nature)  children  of  wrath  even 
as  others." 

But  arguments,  as  well  as  scriptures,  are  urged  against  us  in 
this  controversy.  Some  writers,  who  have  thought  it  their  duty, 
and  a  very  important  one,  to  exert  their  talents  in  defence  of  im- 
puted righteousness,  and  original  or  imputed  sin,  though  not  in 
general  friendly  to  metaphysical  distinctions,  have  ventured  to  fa- 
vour the  world  with  some  rational  arguments  in  defence  of  these 
mysteries.  Their  arguments  arc  plausible:  and  are,  for  the  most 
part,  drawn  from  the  principle,  "that  the  miseries  and  death  which 
come  upon  all  the  children  of  x\dam,  can  never  be  reconciled  with 
justice,  unless  they  are  all  in  some  sort  guilty  "  This  subject  shall 
be  examined,  and  due  attention  be  paid  to  their  reasonings,  iu 
ihe  following  section. 


AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 


SECTION  VII. 


Ji  view  of  the  principal  arguments  by  ,which  infant  guilt  is  rfg- 
fended. 

Mr.  Taylor,  the  great  opposer  of  the  original  corruption  of  our 
nature,  laid  down  the  axiom,  that  "no  just  constitution  can  punish 
the  innocent."  Hence  he  concluded  that  infants  are  not  punished 
for  Adam's  sin;  but  only  suiter  as  a  punishment  to  their  parents, 
who  are  actual  sinners.  His  opponents  admitted  the  same  axiom, 
but  maintained  that  our  sufferings  are  on  account  of  sin,  and  there- 
fore that  they  are  properly  considered  as  legal  punishments:  hence 
they  concluded  all  infants  are  guilty. 

Dr.  Watts  is  of  the  same  opinion.  After  describing  the  suffer- 
ings of  children,  he  says,*  "are  these  treated  as  innocent  creatures.'' 
Or  rather  as  under  some  general  curse,  involved  in  some  general 
punishment." 

"But  may  not  these  sufferings  of  children  be  for  the  punishment 
of  the  sins  of  the  parents,?" 

"Not  with  any  justice  or  equity,  unless  the  sins  of  the  parent* 
are  imputed  to  tiieir  children." 

Mr.  Hebden  corroborates  the  declaration  of  Dr.  Watts:  "It  is 
incompatible  with  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God,"  says  he,  "to  ap- 
point afflictions  of  any  kind  for  the  innocent.  If  Christ  suffered,  it 
was  because  the  sins  of  others  were  imputed  to  him."  Again,  he 
says,  "How  are  many  dead,  or  made  sinners,  through  the  disobe- 
dience of  Adam.?  liis  first  sin  so  far  affects  all  his  descendants,  as 
to  constitute  them  guilty,  or  liable  to  all  that  death,  which  was 
contained  in  the  original  threatening."  Again:  "By  man,  in  the 
twenty -first  verse,  is  n»eant  Adam.  The  all  spokf  n  of  are  all  Isis 
natural  descendants.  These  all  die;  that  is,  as  his  descendants.,  are 
liable  to  death,  yea,  to  death  everlasting." 

These  are  respectable  authorities;  and  it  would  be  an  easy  thing 
to  produce  the  testimony  of  many  others,  to  the  same  effect.  This 
doctrine  concerning  original  guilt  has  long  been  considered  of 
great  importance  with  all  the  defenders  of  imputed  righteousness, 
finished  salvation,  and  eternal  election  and  reprobation.  They 
perceive  if  this  should  be  given  up,  reprobation  will  be  despoiled 
of  a  very  plausible  covering,  and  the  general  system  of  fatality  or 
predestination  will  be  in  imminent  danger. 

*  Paere  69  and  71. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION  S07 

Accordingly,  the  last  quoted  author  says,  "A  denial  of  original 
sin,"  (by  which  he  means  "guilt"that  deserves  "death  everlasting") 
contradicts  the  main  design  of  the  gospel,  which  is  to  humble  vaia 
man,  and  to  ascribe  to  God's  free  grace,  not  man's  free  will,  the 
whole  of  his  salvation.  Nor  indeed  can  we  let  this  doctrine  go, 
without  giving  up  at  the  same  time  the  greatest  part,  if  not  all,  of 
the  essential  articles  of  the  christian  faith." 

This  statement.  I  think,  is  correct,  if  by  "the  essential  articles 
of  the  christian  faith,"  we  are  to  understand  the  distinguishing  te- 
nets of  Mr.  Calvin  and  his  followers.  Their  principles  have  a  close 
connexion  with  the  doctrine  of  original  guilt,  and  therefore  to 
them  the  doctrine  is  very  important.  Their  conviction  of  its  im- 
portance, may  possibly  cause  them  to  be  satisfied  with  very  slight 
evidence  of  its  truth. 

Some  honest  Arminians,  I  fear,  have  been  carried  away  by  the 
general  outcry  against  the  danger  of  giving  up  this  most  essential 
and  interesting  principle.  We  have  been  cautioned  against  Socin- 
ianisin,  and  veryjuslly,  if  Socinians  deny  the  deep  depravity  of  hu- 
man nature;  this  we  aeknow  ledge  in  all  its  extent;  but  this  is  not 
thought  suJ'Hcient:  to  avoid  the  snares  of  the  philosophical  Soein- 
ians,  it  seems,  we  must  espouse  the  doctrine  in  all  its  sacred  mvste- 
ry,  and  maintain  that  infants  are  in  some  sort  guilty.  Are  we  per- 
mitted to  inquire  in  what  sort  they  are  guilty.? 

Are  they  guilty  of  having  a  nature  prone  to  sin?  or  guilty  of  be- 
ing conceived  and  born  of  such  sinful  parents.?  And  was  x'idaai 
guilty  likewise  for  being  made  capable  of  sinning,  and  for  being 
liable  to  the  devil's  temptation?.?  Are  the  South  Sea  savages,  who 
never  heard  of  Christ,  guilty  for  their  want  of  faith  in  him.?  or 
brutes  and  cliildren  for  their  ignorance  of  God.? 

And  besides,  if  the  guilt  of  infants  arises  from  their  native  de- 
pravity, w  hy  recur  to  the  doctrine  of  imputation  to  account  for  it? 
Their  depravity  is  real,  and  not  merely  imputed;  but  ouropponcnts 
tell  us  the  doctrine  of  original  guilt,  and  that  of  imputation  must 
stand  or  fall  together.  They  argue,  that  infants  are  guilty  because 
they  sufter;  and  they  cannot  suffer  on  account  of  the  parents'  sin 
"with  any  justice  or  equity,"  says  Dr.  Watts,  "unless  the  sins  of 
the  parents  are  imputed  to  their  children."  It  is  therefore  plain 
that  a  denial  of  the  imputation  of  sin,  is  a  denial  of  their  guilt, 
and  consequently  their  guilt  arises  not  from  their  depravity, 
which  is  real  and  not  merely  imputed. 

It  remains  then  that  they  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  by  impuf  a- 
fion.  The  apostle  tells  us  condemnation  came  by  one  ({[fence.  We 


308  AN  ESSAY  OX  THE 

would  be  glad  to  know  whether  this  crime  were  divided,  half  be- 
ing imputed  to  us,  and  halt'to  Adam,  or  whether  the  whole  were 
imputed  to  his  descendants?  If  half  were  imputed,  we  deserve 
half  the  penalty;  if  the  whole,  then  all  infants  are  as  guilty  as 
Adam,  and  our  author  is  right  when  he  says,  "His  descendants 
are  liable  to  death,  yea,  to  death  everlasting.^^ 

Thus,  the  secret  is  out.  There  is  supposed  to  be  no  medium 
between  believing  infants  are  guilty,  and  being  Soeinians:  that 
there  is  no  medium  between  believing  infivuts  guilty,  and  acknow- 
ledging that  they  deserve  dealh  everlasting:  therefore,  Mr. 
Whitefield's  conclusion  stands  firm  wilh  all  its  train,  "  that 
election  and  reprobation  are  highly  just  and  reasonable." 

Is  it  any  longer  wonderful  that  our  opponents  should  be  fond  of 
this  doctrine,  and  should  think  that  they  cannot  '«  let  it  go,  with- 
out giving  up  at  the  same  time  the  greatest  part,  if  not  all,  of  the 
essential  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.?" 

I  suspect  we  must  follow  them  in  all  their  conclusions,  or,  deny- 
ing the  principle  from  whence  they  set  out,  (that  is,  the  guilt  of 
infants,)  maintain  that  infants  are  not  guilty  in  any  sort  or  sense 
whatever. 

Here  then  we  are  fairly  at  issue.  What  are  the  arguments  by 
which  infant  guilt  is  to  be  supported? 

The  main  argument  is  drawn  from  the  axiom  above  mentioned, 
and  is  produced  by  different  authors  in  various  forms  of  expres- 
sion. It  is  stated  by  Mr.  Hebden,  in  as  clear  and  intelligible  a 
manner,  as  by  any  I  have  seen:  his  words  are  these: 

«  Since  Adam's  posterity  are  born  liable  to  death,  which  is  the 
due  wages  of  sin,  it  follows,  that  they  are  born  sinners.  No  art  can 
set  aside  the  consequence."  Again: 

"  If  original  sin  is  not,  either  deatli  is  not  the  wages  of  sin,  or 
there  is  punishment  without  guilt:  God  punishes  innocent,  guilt- 
less creatures.  To  suppose  which,  is  to  impute  iniquity  to  the 
Mr.st  Holy." 

I  rejoice  to  see  a  man  thus  come  out,  clear  and  open  as  the  snu, 
and  CTchibit  his  opinions  and  arguments  in  the  concise  and  in- 
telligible style  of  manly  reasoning,  without  confusing  or  covering 
the  question,  and  without  attempting  to  conceal  himself  in  the 
shades  of  mystery. 

It  is  necessary  first,  to  notice  one  or  two  of  the  terms  of  his  ar- 
gument, that  we  may  not  dispute  where  veboiii  agree. 

If,  by  being  "born  sinner-,"  his  meaning  be.  thai  we. are  born  in 
a  disordered  state,  with  a  nature  prone  to  sin,  this  conclusion  is 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION,  Sba 

admitted  without  delay  or  hesitation.  But  if  it  be,  that  we  are 
born  guilty,  the  question  remains  yet  to  be  decided. 

When  he  says  "death  is  the  due  wages  of  sin,"  if  his  meaning 
be  "death  everlasting,"  1  acknowledge  it  is  always  the  wages  of 
sin.  But  if  it  be  temporal  death,  and  if  by  the  wages  of  sin  we  are 
to  understand,  a.  penalty  which  justice  requires,  although  this  is  the 
wages  of  sin  originally,  yet  it  is  not  so  in  all  cases,  otherwise  the 
beasts  and  the  fowls  of  heaven  are  sinners,  which  has  not  yet  been 
pretended. 

Having  premised  thus  much,  we  come  to  the  argiiment,  the 
whole  force  of  which  may  be  expressed  in  these  words:  It  is  unjust 
to  inflict  misery  and  death  on  those  who  are  not  guilty;  but  misery 
and  death  are  inflicted  on  infants;  therefore  those  who  say  infants 
are  not  guilty,  charge  God  with  injustice. 

I  purpose  now  to  show,  first,  that  this  argument,  if  solid,  would 
involve  our  opponents  in  as  great  a  dilemma  as  ourselves;  and  se- 
condly, that  it  has  no  strength  to  support  their  conclusion. 

First,  the  argument,  if  true,  would  involve  them  as  much  as 
ourselves.     This  will  appear  from  the  three  following  reflections. 

1.  They  must  prove  that  the  inferior  animals  are  guilty,  or  that 
they  do  not  suffer  on  account  of  siu,  neither  of  which  has  yet  been 
attempted,  or  their  system  militates  against  the  justice  of  God  as 
much  as  ours. 

2.  If  the  guilt  of  infants  consists  in  their  being  born  with  a  fal- 
len nature,  it  follows  that  they  ought  not  to  have  been  thus  born, 
otherwise  you  say  they  ought  to  be  guilty:  to  say  a  person  ought 
to  be  guilty,  is  to  say,  it  is  right  to  be  guilty,  whieh  is  a  contradic- 
tion, and  at  the  same  time  supposes,  that  a  guilty  person  deserves 
no  punishment,  unless  we  say  he  deserves  punishment  for  doing 
right.  And  if  infants  ought  not  to  have  been  born  with  a  fallen 
nature,  then  it  was  their  duty  to  overturn  the  laws  of  nature,  and 
defeat  the  dispensations  of  God  in  peopling  the  earth  with  the 
descendants  of  Adam.  To  deny  this,  is  to  say  it  is  not  a  person's 
duty  to  keep  himself  clear  of  guilt,  which  at  once  makes  it  right 
to  do  wrong  and  saps  the  foundation  of  all  moral  principles. 
Our  opponents  must  therefore  embrace  all  these  consequences,  or 
admit  that  infants  are  not  guilty,  on  account  of  being  born  with  a 
fallen  and  depraved  nature.  It  remains, 

3.  That  if  they  are  guilty  at  all,  it  must  be  by  virtue  of  the 
act  of  imputation,  and  by  nothing  else.  This  seems  to  be  the 
view  of  their  writers  on  the  subject,  though  they  frequently  speak 
in  a  confused  way,  and  it  is  hard  to  discover  whether  they  mean 

Rr 


310  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

that  our  original  guilt  arises  solely  from  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  or  entirely  from  our  degenerate  nature,  or  partly  from  one 
and  partly  from  the  other. 

Dr.  Watts  clearly  puts  the  question,  "may  not  these  sufferings 
of  children  be  for  the  punishment  of  the  sins  of  their  parents?" 
or,  (we  might  with  equal  propriety  say,)  for  the  sin  of  our  first 
parents? 

"Not  with  any  justice  or  equity,"  says  he,  "unless  the  sins  of 
the  parents  are  imputed  to  the  children." 

Now  they  believe  we  actually  suft'er  for  the  sin  of  our  first  pa- 
rent, and  at  the  same  time  maintain  that  this  could  not  be  inflicted 
"with  any  justice  or  equity,  unless  the  sins  of  the  parents  are 
imputed  to  their  children."  It  therefore  follows,  that  if  the  pa- 
rents' sin  had  not  been  thus  imputed,  all  the  children  of  Adam 
would  have  been  clear  of  guilt,  and  could  not  have  suffered  "with 
any  justice  or  equity."  This  imputation,  they  tell  us,  is  the  act  of 
God:  consequently  we  were  never  guilty  till  God  made  us  so,  by 
the  act  of  imputation. 

Supposing  that  God  had  not  imputed  Adam's  sin  to  us:  we  should 
then  have  been  free  from  misery,  it  seems,  and  it  would  have  been 
unjust  for  infants  either  to  softer  or  die.  And  why  so?  Because  they 
would  have  been  clear  of  guilt,  and  "no  just  constitution  can 
punish  the  innocent."  It  is  acknowledged  then  that  infants  of 
themselves,  abstracted  from  the  imputation,  are  not  guilty:  there- 
fore when  God  imputed  guilt  to  them,  he  charged  them  with  be- 
ing guilty,  when  they  were  not  so.  And  is  this  the  way  we  are 
to  reconcile  infant  sufferings  with  the  justice  of  God? 

The  maxim  is  thought  to  be  incontrovertible,  that  no  just  con- 
stitution can  punish  the  innocent:  and  is  it  not  equally  evident, 
that  no  just  constitution  can  impute  guilt  to  the  innocent,  in  order 
to  punish  them  as  guilty  creatures  when  they  are  not  so?  The  in- 
quisitors of  Spain,  we  are  told,  burnt  men  to  death  for  crimes 
of  which  they  were  not  guilty;  but  those  crimes  were  imputed  to 
them  by  the  "holy  inquisition,"  and  this  was  thought  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  justice  of  the  sentence!  In  li^e  manner  it  appears 
that  our  opponents,  being  pressed  with  Dr.  Taylor's  axiom,  and 
fondly  supposing  it  involves  the  Arminians  in  an  "inextricable 
dilemma,"  leap  out  of  the  difficulty  themselves,  by  gravely  recur- 
ring to  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  and  thus  avoid  the  "  conse- 
quence which  no  art  can  set  aside,"  by  supposing  one  unjust  ac- 
tion is  excused  by  another.  Will  they  say  God  has  a  right  to  im- 
pute sin  to  whom  he  pleases?  And  why  not  an  equal  right  to  pun- 
ish whom  he  pleases,  without  imputing  sin  to  them? 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  311 

Szcondlt/f  The  argument  has  no  strength  to  support  their  conclu- 
sion. 

The  attack  which  I  mean  to  make  must  of  course  be  levelled 
against  the  major  proposition;  for  that  infants  do  in  fact  suffer 
and  die,  an  idiot  would  acknowledge.  Let  us  then  examine  this 
formidable  principle,  that  it  is  unjust  for  those  to  sufterand  die 
who  are  not  guilty,  or  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Taylor,  that  «no  just 
constitution  can  punish  the  innocent." 

That  justice  does  not  require  that  the  innocent  should  suffer,  is 
indeed  self-evident:  but  that  justice  admits  of  it,  whenever  it  re- 
sults from  the  attribute  of  goodness,  I  hope  may  be  established 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 

Ev€ry  violation  of  what  justice  requires,  is  unjust;  whatever 
accords  with  what  justice  admits,  but  does  not  require,  is  benevo- 
lent. (I  speak  of  moral  actions.) 

To  say  justice  does  not  admit  of  any  thing  but  what  it  requires, 
is  to  say  justice  required  of  God  to  bestow  all  the  favours  he  has 
ever  bestowed  upon  mankind,  or  else  that  it  did  not  admit  of  it:  if 
it  required  it,  God  would  have  been  unjust  had  he  Avithheld  his 
favours;  and  if  it  did  not  admit  of  it,  he  was  unjust  in  bestowing 
them. 

Benevolence  has  aright  to  do  any  thing  which  justice  admits; 
there  is  no  benevolence  in  merely  doing  what  justice  requires; 
therefore  if  justice  admits  nothing  but  what  it  requires,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  benevolence  in  the  universe. 

A  present  evil  inflicted,  when  necessary,  to  prevent  a  greater 
€vil,  or  to  promote  a  lasting  good  to  come,  is  not  only  just,  hut 
truly  benevolent,  whether  inflicted  on  the  guilty  or  the  innocent. 
I  grant  the  innocent  do  not  deserve  any  degree  of  misery;  that  is, 
justice  does  not  require  it;  but  justice  admits  of  it,  for  the  best 
reason  in  the  world,  and  that  is,  that  it  is  required  by  goodness. 

We  will  suppose  a  little  child  is  seized  with  some  disorder 
which  threatens  to  keep  it  in  lingering  misery  to  the  end  of  life:  a 
physician  proposes  by  a.short  but  severe  operation,  to  effect  a  per- 
fect cure:  perhaps  a  leg  or  an  arm  must  be  amputated,  or  some 
other  operation  must  be  endured  equally  painful:  every  groan  and 
shriek  of  the  innocent  little  creature  cries  in  the  ears  of  reason 
and  humanity  that  it  does  not  deserve  this  misery:  but  it  is  the 
physician  who  inflicts  it:  is  he  therefore  an  unjust  man?  not  at  all; 
because  the  present  pain  will  promote  an  excellent  end  in  future, 
and  it  is  inflicted  with  a  benevolent  intention. 


9i2  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Let  us  suppose  the  physician  afterwards  takes  hold  of  another 
child  of  the  same  family,  who  is  in  perfect  health,  and  cuts  off  its 
arm,  or  performs  the  same  operation  that  was  performed  on  the 
other,  knowing  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  it,  and  that  it  would 
injure  the  child  through  life:  would  not  every  ones'  indignation 
be  raised  against  him,  as  an  unjust  and  a  cruel  monster  of  barbar-> 
ity?  And  why?  Because  the  misery  inflicted  did  not  arise  from  a 
benevolent  intention,  nor  promote  a  benevolent  end:  the  child  did 
not  deserve  it,  and  there  was  no  necessity  for  it;  therefore  justice 
was  so  far  from  requiring  it,  that  it  required  the  contrary.  How 
then  could  justice  admit  of  the  operation,  in  the  former  case? 
Was  the  former  child  more  guilty  than  the  latter?  This  cannot  be 
pretended,  unless  we  are  disposed  to  conclude,  very  gravely,  that 
it  was  guilty  of  having  the  disease.  As  they  were  therefore  both 
alike  as  to  innocence  or  guilt,  justice  did  not  require  that  either  of 
them  should  be  punished  by  the  physician;  but  it  admitted  of  it  in 
one  case,  and  forbid  it  in  the  other,  for  this  reason  only,  that  the 
former  ease  was  benevolent,  and  therefore  consistent  with  justice, 
the  latter  unjust  and  cruel,  and  therefore  contrary  to  it. 

If  it  can  be  proved  that  justice  requires  that  all  infants  should 
guffer  and  die,  we  will  acknowledge  at  once  that  they  are  guilty. 
But  if  this  dispensation  was  the  result  of  goodness,  it  remains  that 
their  sufferings  are  consistent  with  justice,  but  that  it  does  not 
demand  them.  That  it  was  the  result  of  benevolence  may  be  made 
evident,  1  think,  by  the  following  arguments. 

1.  It  will  be  readily  granted  that  Adam  himself,  after  he  sin* 
ned,  was  guilty:  that  he  by  disobedience  forfeited  all  the  blessings 
of  Paradise,  and  justly  deserved  to  die.  Whence  then  was  he  per- 
mitted to  enjoy  his  forfeited  life,  and  the  blessings  of  it,  for  near- 
ly a  thousand  years?  Was  it  not  through  mere  grace  or  favour? 
None  surely  will  presume  to  deny  it.  Had  not  the  stroke  of  justice 
been  thus  through  mercy  suspended,  we  should  have  never  been 
born  to  suffer  and  die,  unless  our  opponents  will  insist  that  Adam 
would  have  actually  propagated  his  species  after  he  was  dead* 
Therefore  our  being  born  as  we  now  are  is  the  result  of  benevo- 
lence, sparing  our  first  parents  after  their  transgression. 

2.  It  is  supposed  that  because  infants  do  in  fact  suffer  and  die, 
justice  therefore  requires  it  of  them:  but  why  is  it  that  good  men, 
after  being  pardoned  and  fully  sanctified,  have  still  to  suffer  and 
die?  Our  objectors  insist,  that  all  the  suffering  justice  required  of 
them  was  entirely  satisfied  when  the  Saviour  undertook  to  die  in 
their  place.  And  though  we  believe  this  was  intended  only  to  sa- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  gig 

tisfy  justice  for  them  to  be  spared;  to  Be  placed  in  a  state  of  proba* 
tion;  and  to  receive  the  free  offers  of  salvation  through  Jesus 
Christ;  yet  we  also  acknowledge  that  when  the  goodness  of  God 
pardons  their  sins,  and  renews  them  in  the  spirit  of  their  minds, 
full  satisfaction  is  rendered,  and  justice  requires  no  more.  But 
still  thev  have  to  die.  Is  it  because  they  are  still  guilty,  after  all 
that  God  has  done  for  them  in  redemption,  pardon  and  sanctifica- 
tion?  or  merely  because  they  were  so  before?  If  men,  after  their 
sins  have  all  been  blotted  out,  are  still  under  condemnation,  mere- 
ly because  they  were  once  guilty,  they  are  justified  and  condemned 
at  the  same  time,  and  may  be  so  eternally;  because  it  will  be  for- 
ever true  that  they  were  once  guilty.  We  might  as  well  say  that 
a  man  who  was  once  convicted  of  a  crime,  but  who  has  received  a 
full  pardon  from  the  governor,  is  still  guilty  and  ought  to  bo 
executed.  If  so,  it  is  plain  the  governor  had  no  just  authority 
to  pardon  him,  otherwise  justice  would  not  afterwards  re- 
quire his  execution.  If  we  say,  therefore,  that  pardoned  and  sancti- 
fied christians  (I  mean  those  who  are  fully  sanctified  and  sealed 
before  death)  still  deserve  death  as  a  penalty,  our  conclusion  is 
founded  on  the  principle,  that  God  has  not  forgiven  all  their  sins^ 
or  that  he  had  no  just  authority  to  do  so. 

3.  If  it  be  granted  that  such  christians  are  now  clear  of  guilt, 
and  nevertheless  have  to  die,  the  argument  against  infants  is  de- 
molished, and  their  sufferings  and  death  are  no  proof  of  their  crim- 
inality: and  if  we  conclude,  on  the  contrary,  that  all  christians  re-v 
main  guilty,  and  therefore  that  justice  requires  their  death,  its  re- 
quirements were  evidently  violated  in  the  case  of  Enoch,  for  the 
apostle  tells  us  "Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not  see 
death."  Heb.  xi.  5.  He  moreover  tells  ns,  when  speaking  of  the 
general  resurrection,  that  "we  which  are  alive  and  remain  shall 
be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air:  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord."  1  Thess. 
ir.  17.  Those  Christians  who  shall  be  alive  at  that  happy  period, 
will  be  so  far  from  enduring  the  lingering  pains  of  death,  that 
they  shall  "be  changed  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at 
the  last  trump."  1  Cor.  xv.  51. 

4.  We  would  be  glad  to  know  whether  infants  are  so  guilty, 
that  justice  requires  that  they  should  suffer  "death  temporal,  spir* 
itual  and  eternal,"  or  w  hether  it  requires  temporal  death  only. 

Suppose  the  last  to  be  true,  that  they  do  not  deserve  damnation, 
but  that  justice  requires  their  present  sufferings  and  their  disso- 
lution. This  being  granted,  these  two  consequences  are  unavoida- 


31^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ble:  first,  that  God  shows  mercy  to  actual  sinners,  but  to  many  in- 
fants he  exercises  jiiclgnient  without  mercy:  for  it  is  no  uncommon 
thing  for  infants  to  die  as  soon  as  they  are  born;  and  therefore  no 
mercy  is  exercised  towards  them;  they  are  not  permitted  to  enjoy 
good  in  the  land  of  the  living;  but  the  whole  penalty  which  they 
deserve  is  executed  upon  them  the  moment  they  come  into  the 
world.  Secondly,  Those  who  say  infants  need  no  Saviour,  on  sup- 
position that  they  are  innocent,  do  not  avoid  the  same  consequence, 
by  supposing  them  guilty  in  the  degree  now  under  consideration: 
for  the  argument  must  rest  upon  the  principle,  that  the  only  office 
of  a  Saviour  is  to  "remove  guilt,  by  bearing  the  penalty:"  and 
that  of  consequence  those  who  have  no  guilt,  need  no  Saviour. 
Now  if  infants  are  only  so  far  guilty  as  to  deserve  temporal  death, 
when  they  actually  die,  the  penalty  is  discharged  by  their  own 
sufferings,  and  of  course,  according  to  the  present  argument,  they 
need  no  Saviour,  because  the  whole  penalty  they  deserved  has 
been  actually  endured  by  them,  and  justice  requires  no  more. 

5.  It  remains  then,  that  the  only  ground  on  which  infant  guilt 
can  prove  they  need  a  Saviour,  is  the  supposition  that  they  are  so 
guilty  as  to  deserve  everlasting  damnation.  And  indeed  this  ap- 
pears to  be  the  ground  generally  taken  by  our  adversaries.  They 
suppose  all  infants  deserve  to  be  damned,  and  therefore  it  is  a  mer- 
cy that  any  of  them  are  permitted  to  pass  with  no  greater  punish- 
ments than  those  which  are  temporal,  or  of  short  duration. 

Dr.  Watts  introduces  this  query,  in  form  of  an  objection:  "But 
how  are  such  miseries  reigning  among  his  Creatures  consistent 
with  the  goodness  of  God?"  "Perfectly  well,"  says  he,  "if  we* 
consider  mankind  as  a  sinful,  degenerate  part  of  God's  crea- 
tion. It  is  most  abundant  goodness  that  they  have  any  com- 
forts left,  and  that  their  miseries  are  not  doubled." 

Now  if  infants  die  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  what  "comforts'* 
have  they  "left?"  And  if  their  present  sufferings  and  death  are 
all  that  they  deserve,  how  is  it  "abundant  goodness  that  their  mis- 
eries are  not  doubled?"  Is  God  abundantly  good  merely  because 
he  does  not  condemn  his  creatures,  and  punish  them  over  again, 
after  they  have  suffered  all  that  they  deserve?  The  doctor's  mean- 
ing evidently  was,  though  he  had  too  much  modesty  and  humani- 
ty to  express  it  openly,  that  all  infants  "deserve  death,  yea,  death 
everlasting."  This  was  expressed  openly  by  one  author  above 
quoted,  and  it  is  evident  that  we  must,  if  we  would  be  consistent, 

•  Page  78. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  3ig 

adopt  the  same  conclusion,  or  maintain  that  infants  are  not  ffuilty 
and  that  they  deserve  no  penalty. 

Let  us  then  suppose  for  the  sake,  of  argument,  however  gloomy 
and  dismal  the  supposition  may  be  to  the  feelings  of  justice  and 
humanity,  that  all  infants  deserve  to  be  sent  into  hell  forever.  1 
suppose  our  opponents  will  readily  admit  that  they  are  not  more 
guilty  than  Adam  was. 

Did  Adam  deserve  death  temporal  and  eternal  the  moment  af- 
ter his  transgression?  or  had  he  a  right  in  justice  to  live  and  en- 
joy the  blessings  of  life  for  almost  a  thousand  years  afterwards? 
If  he  deserved  immediate  death,  it  was  pure  mercy  that  spared 
him,  and  had  the  sentence  been  instantly  executed,  the  temporal 
sufferings  of  his  posterity  would  have  been  thereby  prevented,  un- 
less it  can  be  proved  that  the  earth  would  have  been  peopled  by 
his  dead  body  in  the  grave:  and  so  would  their  eternal  sufferings 
have  been  prevented,  by  the  same  means,  unless  it  can  be  proved 
that  his  soul  would  have  propagated  his  species  in  hell.  Thus 
it  appears,  the  execution  of  justice  on  Adam  would  have  saved 
his  posterity  from  all  guilt,  or  from  all  the  consequences  of  it;  and 
if  mercy  spared  him,  to  impute  sin  to  his  posterity,  they  were 
mercifully  made  guilty,  and  mercifully  exposed  to  «  death  ever- 
lasting." 

If  any  should  attempt  to  evade  this  conclusion,  by  saying  it 
was  not  through  mercy  that  Adam  was  spared  to  enjoy  the  bless- 
ings of  life,  but  through  justice;  then  he  had  a  right  injustice  to 
live  and  enjoy  them  before  the  sentence  of  death,  either  temporal 
or  eternal,  should  be  executed  upon  him:  consequently  his  posteri- 
ty have  an  equal  right,  unless  they  are  more  guilty  than  Adam. 
If  they  are  not  more  guilty,  we  would  thank  our  opponents  to  ex- 
plain how  it  can  accord  with  justice  for  the  sentence  to  be  execut- 
ed on  them  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  whereby  they  are  deprived 
of  those  temporal  blessings  which  they  have  a  right  in  justice  to 
enjoy?  If  they  are  more  guilty  than  Adam,  we  would  gladly  be 
instructed,  whether  imputed  sin  makes  a  person  more  guilty  than 
actual  sin,  or  whether  the  crimes  of  Satan  were  imputed  to'us,  as 
well  as  the  sin  of  our  first  parent.  Adam  deserved  death  tempo- 
ral and  eternal,  but  is  supposed  to  have  had  a  right  first  to  enjoy 
thegood  things  of  this  life;  his  posterity,  we  say,  deserved  the 
.same  death,  but  had  no  such  right  to  the  blessings  of  this  life: 
consequently  infants  are  more  guilty,  and  deserve  a  more  instant 
destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  than  ever  justice  re- 
quired of  Adam  and  Eve,  who  were  the  first  and  most  responsi- 
ble sinners  of  the  human  race. 


di6  AN  EASY  ON  THE 

6.  Lastly,  if  Adam's  sin  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  whereby 
they  were  constituted  guilty,  and  were  exposed  to  the  whole  pe* 
nalty  of  justice  which  Adam  himself  deserved,  then  the  sin  was 
transferred  to  his  posterity,  and  he  became  innocent.  It  was  just 
for  his  guilt  and  punishment  to  be  transferred  to  them,  otherwise 
they  are  not  guilty  and  cannot  be  justly  exposed  to  the  penalty: 
and  if  they  deserve  "death  everlasting"  as  merited  by  his  sin,  and 
should  accordingly  suffer  it,  then  surely  Adam  is  free;  unless  some 
extraordinary  disputant  will  undertake  to  demonstrate  that  aftef 
the  full  demands  of  justice  are  accomplished,  its  demands  are  ab- 
solutely in  full  force  as  they  were  before;  and  that  the  same  sin, 
after  being  justly  imputed,  and  punished  according  to  its  demerit, 
deserves  to  be  punished  over  again,  after  receiving  all  that  was 
deserved.  This  is  an  absolute  contradiction;  but  it  must  be  spared^ 
I  suppose,  because  it  is  the  grand  pillar  on  which  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  Antinomian  divinity  is  built. 

This,  by  the  way,  aftbrds  a  new  argument  against  the  legal  no- 
tion of  atonement}  for  if  redemption  consists  in  having  our  sins  im- 
puted or  transferred  to  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  he  becomes  guilty 
and  suffers  the  penalty  in  our  place;  then  it  very  evidently  fol- 
lows that  if  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  or  transferred  to  his  posterity, 
whereby  they  become  guilty,  and  if  they  should  actually  sutter  th» 
whole  penalty  which  that  sin  deserves,  Adam  would  thus  be  re- 
deemed by  his  posterity  in  the  very  way  our  objectors  suppose  the 
elect  have  all  been  redeemed  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Christ 
could  not  have  redeemed  us,  Ave  are  told,  without  first  becoming 
guilty  by  having  our  sins  imputed  to  him.  "It  is  incompatible  with 
the  justice  and  mercy  of  God,"  says  Mr  Hebden,  "to  appoint 
afflictions  of  any  kind  for  the  innocent.  If  Christ  suffered,  it  was 
because  the  sins  of  others  were  imputed  to  him:"  Had  Christ  re- 
mained innocent  then,  he  could  not  have  suffered  consistently 
with  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
redeemed  the  world:  consequently  the  only  thing  which  enabled 
him  to  do  it,  was  his  becoming  guilty  by  imputation,  without  which 
his  dignity  of  person  would  have  been  of  no  avail.  If  then  the  on- 
ly thing  which  rendered  redemption  effectual  was  his  suffering 
the  penalty,  in  consequence  of  having  our  sin  and  guilt  imputed  to 
him,  it  is  evident  as  day -light  that  had  Adam's  posterity  suffered 
the  penalty,  in  consequence  of  having  his  sin  and  guilt  imputed  to 
them,  they  would  have  done  the  very  thing  for  their  original 
Father  which  redeemed  the  elect,  and  without  which  their  redemp- 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  317 

tion  could  never  be  made  "compatible  with  the  justice  and  mercy 
of  God."* 

These  are  the  noble  fruits  of  the  Antinomian  doctrine  of  chime' 
jrical  imputation!  Adam  is  made  innocent  by  having  his  guilt  con- 
veyed to  posterity; — the  Israelites,  by  having  their's  conveyed  to 
the  scape  goat; — the  elect  in  general,  by  having  their's  conveyed 
to  Christ: — The  Saviour  is  made  guilty  by  having  their  sins  im- 
puted to  him,  and  then,  in  suffering  exactly  what  his  guilt  de- 
serves, he  acquires  a  certain  kind  of  righteousness,  which  he  im- 
mediately transfers  to  them  by  another  act  of  imputation,  whereby 
they  are  made  righteous  in  the  midst  of  all  their  sins!  These  pro- 
found mysteries  have  long  passed  in  the  world  for  pure  gospel;  and 
I  suspect  it  will  be  my  lot  to  pass  for  a  dreadful  heretic,  if  not  for 
a  notorious  blasphemer,  for  attempting  to  remove  the  veil,  and  to 
bring  some  rays  of  evidence  into  the  enormous  temple  of  obscure 


*The  only  exception  that  can  be  made  to  this  argument  is,  "that 
Christ's  becoming  guilty  by  imputation,  though  essential  to  the 
atonement,  was  not  the  only  qualification  which  enabled  him  to 
redeem  his  people:  he  possessed  a  dignity  of  person  \\\\i<i\\  Adam's 
posterity  did  not,  and  this  also  was  essential  to  his  work  of  re- 
demption."   Answer: 

This  objection  supposes  that  dignity  of  person  renders  the  mere 
payment  of  a  debt  meritorious.  As  if  a  prince  or  sovereign,  was 
more  praise-worthy  or  meritorious  than  any  other  person,  in  mere- 
ly paying  his  debts  or  discharging  an  obligation  of  justice.  What 
is  the  difference  with  an  insolvent  debtor,  whether  his  creditor  re- 
ceive payment  by  a  mechanic  who  acts  as  his  surety,  or  by  an  em- 
peror? The  payment  of  the  debt  is  the  single  thing  that  satisfies 
the  creditor,  and  all  the  dignity  of  person  required,  is  an  ability 
to  pay  it;  and  whether  this  be  done  by  the  interposition  of  a  prince 
or  a  Hottentot,  is  the  same  thing,  provided  only  that  the  debt  be 
paid. 

Now  if  Adam's  posterity  had  his  sin  imputed  to  them,  and  it 
they  had  suffered  the  whole  penalty  which  in  justice  it  deserv- 
ed, the  obligation  would  be  as  effectually  discharged,  as  if  the 
penalty  had  been  suffered  by  any  other  person  upon  a  like  imputa- 
tion. If  God  imputed  sin  to  Christ,  whereby  he  became  guilty, 
there  was  no  more  merit  in  his  suffering  in  proportion  to  his  guilt, 
than  in  Adam's  posterity  suffering  in  like  manner:  because  whea 
a  criminal  stands  before  the  bar  of  justice,  dignity  of  person  goe« 
for  nothing,  and  a  king's  son,  suffering  according  to  his  crimes,  is 
no  more  meritorious  than  a  beggar.  Therefore  the  only  ground  oii 
which  we  can  appeal  to  the  dignity  of  Christ,  as  our  meritorious 
Saviour,  is  the  ground  of  his  sufferings  resulting  from  pure  henevo- 
lence:  but  if  so,  he  never  wnsguiliy,  otherwise  we  say,  benevolenct 
consists  in  a  person's  suffering  according  to  his  guilt,  and  couae- 
queutly  according  to  what  he  d«serves. 

S  s 


318  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

divinity,  where  "lady  Wanton"  and  «Free->vrath"  have  kept 
quiet  possession,  and  have  long  concealed  their  native  and  incon- 
ceivable deformity. 

Not  wishing  to  stand  alone,  under  such  a  formidable  charge,  I 
must  close  this  section  by  showing  that  Mr.  Fletcher  bears  an 
equal  share  of  the  reproach. 

''  As  sure  then  as  Christ  was  not  made  sin  [that  is,  a  sin-offer- 
ing]/or  us,  by  a  speculative  imputation  of  our  personal  sins;  but 
by  being  actually  made  flesh,  clothed  with  our  mortality,  and 
'sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,'  so  sure  are  'we  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him;'  not  by  a  speculative  imputation  of 
his  personal  good  works,  but  by  being  'made  partakers  of  the  di- 
vine nature,'  begotten  of  God,  and  clothed  with  essential  right- 
eousness, which  is  the  case,  w  hen  we  'put  on  the  new  man,  who 
after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.' 

"Once  more:  If  these  branches  do  not  believingly  abide  in  Christ 
the  vine,  they  become  such  branches  in  him,  as  bear  not  fruit.  Nay, 
they  bear  the  poison  of  unrighteousness;  iniquity,  therefore,  is 
again  imputed  to  them;  and  so  long  as  they  continue  in  their  sin 
and  unbelief,  they  are  every  moment  liable  to  be  'taken  away,  cast 
into  the  fire  and  burned.'     John  xv.* 

"  This,  honoured  sir,  is  the  holy  imputation  of  righteousness, 
which  we  read  of  in  the  oracles  of  God:  it  hath  truth  for  its  found- 
ation; but  your  imputation  stands  upon  a  preposterous  supposi- 
tion, that  Christ,  the  righteous,  was  an  execrable  sinner,  and  that 
an  elect  is  pei-fectly  righteous,  while  he  commits  execrable  ini- 
quity. 

"  We  firmly  believe,  that  God's  imputation,  whether  of  sin  or 
righteousness,  is  not  founded  upon  sovereign  caprice,  but  upon  in- 
dubitable truth."! 

Now  if  God's  imputation  is  founded  upon  indubitable  truth, 
then  he  never  imputed  sin  to  Christ,  unless  it  is  indubitably- 
true  that  Christ  was  a  sinner:  he  never  imputed  righteousness  to 
any  man,  who  in  reality  and  truth  was  not  righteous:  he  never  im- 
puted guilt  to  any  creature,  but  to  those  who  in  reality,  and  indu- 
bitable truth,  were  guilty:  consequently,  he  never  imputed  guilt  to 
Christ,  or  to  infants,,  unless  they  were  positively  guilty,  indepen- 
dent of  that  imputation. 

It  is  true,  when  we  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  our  sins  are 
forgiven,  and  faith  is  reckoned  to  us  for  righteousness;  but  Mr, 


Vol.  2.  page  1G7,  168.  f  page  165. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  319 

Fletclier  observes,  very  justly,  (page  165)  "As  we  are  partakers 
by  generation  of  Adam's  original  pollution,  before  God  imputes  it 
to  us,  that  is,  before  he  accounts  us  really  polluted;  so  are  we  par- 
takers by  regeneration  of  Christ's  original  righteousness,  before 
God  imputes  righteousness  to  us,  that  is,  before  he  accounts  us 
really  righteous."  Thus  is  Mr.  Fletcher  involved  in  my  suppos- 
ed heresy,  and  I  take  new  courage  upon  finding  myself  supported 
by  so  respectable  an  author. 


SECTION  vm. 

Infants  are  not  guilty  on  account  of  tJieir  natural  passions,  or  pro- 
pensities to  evil. 

Having  examined  the  supposed  guilt  of  infants,  arising  from 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  let  us  now  inquire  whether  they  be 
guilty,  and  deserve  to  die,  together  with  all  christians,  on  account 
of  their  original  corruption,  or  internal  propensities  to  sin.  It  is 
true,  that  too  many  christians,  after  being  received  into  divine  fa- 
vour, neglect  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  in  all 
things;  and  it  appears  from  the  words  of  two  apostles,  that  tem- 
poral death,  to  some,  becomes  a  penalty  which  justice  requires,  on 
account  of  their  sins  after  justification.  Whether  the  following 
passages  do  not  evidently  apply  to  the  present  question,  I  leave 
the  reader  to  judge. 

"  Is  any  among  you  afflicted?  let  him  pray.  And  the  prayer  of 
faith  shall  save  the  sick;  and  if  he  have  committed  sins,  they  shall 
be  forgiven  him."  Jam.  v.  13, 15.  "If  any  man  see  his  brother  sin 
a  sin  which  is  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  he  shall  give  him 
life  for  them  that  sin  notuuto  death.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death: 
I  do  not  say  he  should  pray  for  it.  All  unrighteousness  is  sin:  and 
there  is  a  sin  not  unto  death."  1  John  v.  16. 

As  to  their  remaining  propensities  to  evil,  though  they  may 
cause  death  to  be  necessary,  yet  they  do  not  cause  any  person  to 
deserve  it  as  a  penalty,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  they  constitute 
him  guilty.  The  contrary  of  this  has  been  already  proved;  and  it  is 
evident  to  any  man  of  reason  and  candour,  that  while  a  christian 
lives  without  committing  sin,  he  lives  without  contracting  guilt.. 


93(r  AN  K8SAY  ON  THE 

whatever  his  temptations  or  propensities  may  be.  The  ^istinetion 
between  actual  and  inward  sin  I  cannot  understand,  unless  it  be 
meant  to  distinguish  between  the  acts  of  the  body,  and  the  acta 
of  the  mind  without  the  bodyw  It  is  evident  that  all  sin  which 
brings  guilt  is  actual:  though  there  may  be  no  action  of  the  body, 
yet  it  is  a  voluntary  act  of  the  will,  going  contrary  to  a  known  law 
of  God,  otherwise  it  brings  no  condemnation,  seeing  «gin  is  a  vo- 
luntary transgression  of  a  known  law." 

That  evil  propensities  are  sometimes  figuratively  called  sin, 
because  they  are  the  original  effects  of  it,  has  been  already  grant- 
ed and  explained;  (section  V.  of  the  present  chapter,)  but  every 
argument  to  prove  that  they  constitute  a  person  guilty,  will  equally 
prove  temptations  to  do  so,  because  they  themselves  are  proper- 
ly nothing  else,  and  will  be  comprehended  under  every  intelligible 
definition  that  can  be  given  of  temptation. 

Does  temptation  consist  in  presenting  some  forbidden  object  to 
the  mind,  and  exciting  certain  thoughts  or  feelings  which  tend  to 
lead  us  to  do  wrong?  Let  any  man  consult  his  consciousness,  and 
say  if  all  bis  temptations  be  not  of  this  nature,  and  if  his  pro- 
pensities be  not  exactly  of  the  same  tendency.  Does  temptation 
operate  in  such  a  way,  that  it  demands  an  effort,  of  which  we  are 
conscious,  to  keep  from  yielding  to  its  influence-^*  So  do  these  evil 
propensities.  Is  temptation  an  occasion  of,  or  an  enticement  to  sin.'* 
So  are  these  propensities.  Is  a  man  clear  of  guilt,  however  strong 
liis  temptations  fliay  be,  till  he  consents  to  do  what  he  knows  is 
'wrong?  So  he  is  when  \\e  feels  these  propensities.  But  is  not  a 
jnan  morally  defiled  and  guilty  for  having  evil  tempers  and  dis, 
positions  in  his  nature?  Answer: 

If  by  evil  tempers,  we  are  to  understand  pride  or  malice,  and 
the  like,  that  soul  in  which  they  predominate  is  certainly  guilty; 
but  if  we  only  mean  that  he  feels  ^  propensity  to  pride  or  malice, 
lie  is  not  guilty  on  this  account. 

A  man  is  praised  and  flattered  by  another:  he  yields  to  the  in- 
fluence of  this  adulation,  until  he  habitually  thinks  more  highly 
of  himself  than  he  ought  to  think.  This  is  an  evil  temper,  and  ia 
this  he  is  guilty:  why  so?  because  he  was  so  far  from  resisting  the 
temptation,  that  he  entered  into  it,  by  a  voluntary  act  of  his  will; 
indulging  the  vain  thoughts,  ^nd  snftering  them  to  lodge  withia 
him. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  malice:  a  man  is  insulted,  and  feels  a 
propensity  to  seek  revenge:  he  yields  to  this  temptation,  rumi- 
nates upon  the  provocation,  till  it  is  greatly  magnified  iq  hie  vm-' 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^21 

gination,  and  thus  sinful  anger,  or  perhaps  settled  malice,  takes  the 
ascendency  in  his  heart.  Such  a  man  is  guilty  before  God,  for  this 
plain  reason,  that  his  will,  instead  of  resisting  the  temptation, 
voluntarily  yielded  and  consented  to  its  influence.  He  indulged 
malice,  which  implies  an  evil  intention,  or  a  desire  of  injury  to 
his  neighbour,  in  which  consists  the  essence  of  criminality. 

But  suppose,  when  the  man  felt  a  propensity  to  pride  or  maliee, 
he  had  resisted  it  with  laborious  diligence  till  he  had  gained  the 
victory,  and  the  temptation  was  no  longer  felt:  to  pronounce  him 
guilty  in  this,  is  to  say  that  guilt  consists,  not  in  an  evil  wish  or 
intention,  but  either  in  being  tempted,  or  in  resisting  temptation, 
in  order  to  maintain  a  good  intention,  and  to  prevent  an  evil  one 
from  entering  into  the  soul. 

Habitual  malice  is  indeed  criminal  in  a  high  degree,  not  because 
a  man  has  a  propensity  to  it,  but  because  it  carries  in  its  bosom  a 
habitual  or  perpetual  consent  of  the  will  to  that  which  the  under* 
standing  knows,  or  may  know,  to  be  wrong. 

But  suppose  the  propensity  leads  the  person  into  a  malicious 
temper,  because  he  does  not  know  such  a  temper  to  be  wrong,  and 
therefore  does  not  try  to  resist  it:  is  this  person  guilty?  If  his  igno- 
rance of  duty  in  this  case,  arose  from  a  voluntary  neglect  of  the 
means  of  knowledge,  he  is  guilty;  because  it  included  an  intention 
not  to  pursue  the  knowledge  of  duty,  when  God  had  put  that  know° 
ledge  within  his  power.  But  if  his  ignorance  was  invincible,  the 
indulgence  of  passion,  though  voluntary,  was  no  crime;  otherwise 
the  beasts  of  the  earth  are  criminals,  for  the  voluntary  indulgence 
of  their  passions,  and  any  person  may  be  sentenced  to  death  for  the 
violation  of  a  precept  which  he  knows  not,  and  cannot  know. 

"No  person  is  accountable  for  what  is  not  in  his  power."  This 
is  a  first  principle  of  morals,  which  governs  the  laws  of  all  nations 
under  heaven;  and  the  contrary  of  it  is  shocking  to  the  common 
sense  of  a  savage.  To  deny  this  principle,  is  to  demolish  the  found- 
ation of  all  moral  distinctions,  and  to  open  a  wide  door  of  athe- 
ism to  the  world.  Tyrants  may  make  what  laws  they  please  for 
mankind,  and  no  person  could  prove  it  unjust  for  them  to  burn 
their  subjects  to  death  for  not  flying  to  the  moon,  if  it  be  true  that 
men  are  accountable  for  that  which  is  not  in  their  power. 

Infants  are  supposed  guilty  because  they  have  been  born  the  de- 
scendants of  Adam,  or  because  they  have  evil  propensities  or  pas- 
sions: but  they  are  not  guilty  for  these  things  if  it  be  true,  that  no 
person  is  culpable  for  what  is  not  in  his  power.  To  make  them 
f^ilty  Tve  must  deny  this  principle;  and  if  we  deny  it,  the  conse- 


323  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

quence  will  indeed  follow  that  infants  may  be  guilty.  But  it  would 
equally  follow,  that  angels  may  deserve  damnation  for  not  creat- 
ing worlds,  men  and  women  for  not  visiting  the  planet  Jupiter,  and 
beasts,  birds  and  fishes,  for  not  understanding  the  elements  of 
Eiiolid,  or  the  profound  speculations  of  sir  Isaac  Newton.  Deny 
the  first  principle  above  stated,  and  we  may  safely  defy  the  world 
to  disprove  these  conclusions.  Acknowledge  it,  and  we  may  in 
vain  muster  up  arguments  to  prove  infants  guilty,  till  we  first 
prove  they  have  done  some  criminal  action  which  they  had  power 
to  leave  undone. 

But  it  may  be  said,  suppose  a  sinner  should  increase  his  evil 
habits,  till  he  has  no  more  power  to  resist  them,  will  it  not  follow, 
if  thei-e  can  be  no  guilt  where  there  is  no  power,  that  such  a  per- 
son continued  to  multiply  his  crimes,  till  he  had  sinned  himself 

innocent?  This  argument  is  urged  by  Dr.  J *  and  it  deserves 

our  deliberate  attention.  His  words  are: 

"If  a  corrupt  bias  makes  sin  to  be  necessary,  and  consequently 
to  be  no  sin,  then  the  more  any  man  is  inclined  to  sin,  the  less  sin 
he  can  commit:  and  as  that  corrupt  bias  grows  stronger,  his  actual 
sinning  becomes  more  necessary:  and  so  the  man  instead  of  grow- 
ing more  wicked  grows  more  innocent." 

This  metaphysical  argument  is  very  plausible;  but  a  little  at- 
tention, I  presume,  will  enable  us  to  unravel  it. 

We  will  suppose  A  and  B  began  their  career  with  evil  propen- 
sities exactly  equal,  and  with  an  equal  degree  of  knowledge  and 
power.  They  were  then  alike  responsible  for  their  conduct,  be- 
cause they  stood  on  equal  ground.  At  the  end  of  ten  years  A 
has  sinned  twice  as  much  as  B,  and  of  course  has  contracted  pro- 
pensities twice  as  strong  as  the  other,  and  thereby  diminished  his 
power,  and  retains  only  half  as  much  as  his  fellow.  Is  he  there- 
fore less  guilty  than  B.^  He  is  not.  He  is  more  guilty  in  every 
respect.  First,  his  acts  of  wickedness  are  double,  and  the  whole 
guilt  of  them  are  upon  him.  Secondly,  he  is  a  greater  sinner  in  his 
disposition,  because  he  has  had  a  greater  degree  of  evil  intention, 
or  resolution  to  sin,  otherwise  his  companion  would  have  gone  as 

far  as  himself.  Mr.   J will  certainly   agree  with  me  in  this 

conclusion:  wherein  do  we  then  differ  from  each  other.?  The  dif- 
ference consists  in  this:  he  concludes  this  man's  wickedness  and 
guilt  arise  partly  from  his  sinful  acts,  partly  from  his  evil  inten- 
tion or  resolution  to  sin,  and  partly  from  his  present  evil  propen- 


*  Vindication,  p.  68,  &c. — See  Mr.  Wesley  on  original  sin,  p.  155. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  3^3 

sities  contracted  thereby:  1  conclude,  his  guilt  consists,  not  in  his 
enfeebled  and  disordered  state,  but  in  that  evil  disposition  and 
conduct  which  brought  him  into  it. 

Suppose  they  now  commit  a  certain  crime;  the  act  with  both  is 
the  same,  and  we  will  suppose  they  both  have  the  same  degree  of 
evil  intention  or  purpose  of  mind  to  do  wrong:  now  admitting 
their  guilt  to  be  equal  in  this  particular  crime,  it  follows  that 
there  was  no  sin  in  the  strength  of  propensity,  abstract  from  the 
evil  intention,  because  this  propensity  is  twice  as  strong  in  one  as 
in  the  other,  when  their  crime  is  exactly  equal.  Will  any  one 
say  the  propensity  and  the  evil  intention  are  inseparable.? 

Suppose  A  begins  to  yield  to  the  reproofs  of  the  spirit,  and  re- 
solves, like  the  prodigal,,  to  return  to  his  father's  house.  Now  a 
struggle  arises:  his  propensity  leads  him  to  do  wrong,  and  his  re- 
solution opposes  it.  His  intention  now  is  to  do  right,  and  this  leads 
him  to  oppose  that  "evil  bias"  which  is  drawing  in  a  contrary  di- 
rection. Is  it  right  for  him  to  resist  this  corrupt  bias?  If  so,  while 
resisting  it  he  is  doing  what  he  ought  to  do,  and  therefore  there  is 
no  sin  in  this  action,  otherwise  you  say  it  is  a  sin  for  a  man  to  do 
i'ight.  But  he  felt  the  propensity  at  the  same  time,  because  he  was 
resisting  it:  consequently  the  evil  bias  does  not  constitute  a  person 
guilty,  however  strong  it  may  be,  when  unaccompanied  with  any 
voluntary  consent  of  the  mind. 

In  the  progress  of  reformation  A  is  suddenly  beset  with  a  temp- 
tation to  drunkenness:  his  propensity  arises  in  all  its  strength  and 
violence:  he  struggles  manfully  against  it  for  a  little  time,  but  his 
resolution  fails;  he  yields,  and  commits  the  crime.  Meantime  B 
comes  along,  seeking  an  occasion  to  get  drunk,  with  '-a  regular  and 
fixed  purpose  of  soul"  to  do  it  the  first  opportunity:  he  finds  an 
opportunity  and  immediately  enters  into  the  extravagancies  of  in- 
toxication. Now  tell  me  who  was  the  greater  criminal  in  this  par- 
ticular ease.  If  the  former,  the  consequence  is,  that  the  man  who 
is  overtaken  in  a  fault  is  a  greater  sinner  than  he  who  with  a  fixed 
purpose  of  evil,  deliberately  seeks  an  occasion  to  commit  it:  if  the 
latter,  it  follows  that  criminality  does  not  consist  in  the  strength  of 
our  corrupt  bias,  but  in  the  degree  of  our  wicked  intention. 

As  to  the  supposition  that  a  sinner  may  continue  his  wicked 
course  till  he  has  no  power,  so  that  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  sus- 
.pend  his  sinful  actions  for  a  moment,  it  remains  to  be  proved  that 
there  are  any  such  sinners  in  the  universe. 

If  there  were  such  an  one,  1  should  not  hesitate  to  conclude 
that  he  is  no  longer  a  moral  agent,  and  is  uo  more  accountable  for 


324  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

his  present  actions  than  any  man  in  bedlam.  According  to 
Dr.  J— — 's  argument,  this  man  has  become  innocent;  but  accord- 
ing to  truth,  he  is  guilty  of  all  the  enormous  crimes  which  hav« 
ruined  his  moral  faculties.  "He  has  filled  up  the  measure  of  his 
iniquities,"  and  if  his  soul  is  so  full  of  sin  that  it  can  hold  no  more, 
does  it  follow  that  he  is  less  guilty  than  he  was  before?  It  does  not. 
This  sophistical  conclusion  has  nothing  to  rest  upon,  but  the  sup- 
position that  a  sinner  does  not  carry  the  gu^It  of  his  old  sins  along 
with  him.  Let  Mr.  J  prove  that  some  sinners   (devils  if  you 

please)  have  lost  all  power  to  suspend  their  evil  acts,  and  are  dri- 
ven forward  by  the  same  necessity  that  a  deserted  vessel  is  car- 
ried by  wind  and  tide:  he  may  then  conclude,  and  we  will  instant- 
ly yield  to  the  conclusion,  that  those  persons  have  become  so  guil- 
ty, that  it  is  impossible  for  their  guilt  to  be  enlarged.  This  conse- 
quence we  readily  adopt,  because  it  is  supported  by  th«  plain  dic- 
tates of  common  sense. 

Let  us  suppose  that  your  servant,  to  avoid  the  trouble  of  exe- 
cuting your  commands,  takes  a  sledge-hammer  and  breaks  both 
his  legs:  we  all  agree  that  the  crime  is  enormous,  and  he  is 
guilty  in  a  high  degree;  but  you  insist  that  he  is  not  only  guilty  oa 
account  of  the  action  he  has  done,  but  is  very  much  to  blame  be- 
cause he  does  not  walk  with  broken  legs.  Common  sense 
decides,  that  though  he  is  really  guilty  of  defrauding  you  of  all 
the  service  due  you  to  the  end  of  life,  yet  the  whole  of  that  gnilt 
arises  from  the  voluntary  action  which  unqualified  him  for  your 
service,  and  that  he  is  in  no  degree  guilty  for  not  mending  his 
broken  legs,  when  it  is  not  in  his  power. 

It  has  been  often  said,  "  if  we  destroy  our  power  to  obey,  this 
does  not  destroy  God's  right  to  demand  obedience."  I  answeV, 
your  right  to  your  servant's  obedience,  is  the  ground  of  justice  for 
you  to  punish  him  in  proportion  to  his  guilt  in  depriving  you  of 
that  obedience.  If  the  breaking  of  his  legs  destroyed  your  right  to 
demand  obedience,  you  would  have  no  right  to  punish  him  for  it. 
If  your  servant  owed  you  obedience  for  ten  years,  the  act  of  break- 
ing his  legs  has  as  cfl'ectually  deprived  you  of  it,  as  if  he  had  regu- 
larly neglected  your  commands  for  ten  years:  this  proves  the  enor- 
mity of  his  offence,  and  you  have  a  right  to  punish  him  according- 
ly. Now  if  you  execute  the  penalty  upon  him,  according  to  his  de- 
merit, what  other  demand  have  you  for  the  obedience  required?  If 
you  have  a  right  to'receive  the  obedience,  for  the  neglect  of  which 
you  have  inflicted  punishments  to  the  full  demand  of  justice^  it  fol-' 
lows  that  your  original  right  was  double;  and  if  you  could  demand 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  32S 

the  obedience,  after  requiring  the  whole  penalty  which  justice 
could  demand  for  the  neglect  of  it,  with  equal  truth  it  might  be 
^aid,  that  you  had  a  right  to  inflict  the  whole  penalty,  after  re- 
ceiving the  full  obedience  which  justice  allowed  you,  and  en* 
joined  on  your  servant  to  perform. 

If  any  men  or  devils  have  sinned  till  their  moral  faculties  are 
entirely  ruined,  and  their  power  of  self-government  is  totally  de- 
stroyed, the  enormous  guilt  lies  upon  them,  of  utterly  unqualify- 
ing themselves  for  God's  service  forever!  He  had  a  right  to  their 
service  forever,  of  which  they  have  deprived  him,  by  totally  ru- 
ining the  moral  power  of  their  souls;  hence  the  deep  enormity  of 
their  offences;  and  hence  the  justice  of  that  sentence  which  de- 
nounces everlasting  destruction  Jrom  the  presence  of  the.  Lord,  and 
from  the  glory  of  his  power. 

But  will  any  one  say,  that  God,  besides  punishing  them  in  pro- 
portion to  their  guilt,  has  a  right  to  blame  them,  and  augment 
their  torment,  for  not  breaking  the  gates  of  hell,  and  coming  back 
to  his  service,  when  it  is  not  in  their  power?  No:  such  an  absurdi- 
ty is  shocking  to  conscience,  an  insult  to  every  principle  of  justice 
and  equity,  and  we  may  safely  defy  our  opponents  to  produce  any 
proof  of  it,  from  the  oracles  of  God,  or  from  any  other  source  of 
evidence.  Let  the  rubbish  be  removed,  and  it  still  remains  true 
and  clear  as  the  meridian  sun,  that  no  being  in  the  universe  is  cut" 
pable  for  what  is  not  in  his  power. 

Some  have  attempted  to  evade  the  conclusion,  by  distinguishing 
between  a  natural  and  a  moral  inability:  those  devils,  they  would 
say,  are  still  augmenting  their  guilt,  because  they  do  not  choose  to 
reform,  if  they  had  the  power.  I  answer,  they  have  power  to 
c/ioose  differently  from  what  they  do,  or  they  have  not:  if  they  ftare, 
I  grant  they  are  continuing  to  augment  their  gUilt;  if  they  have 
not,  the  moral  necessity  by  which  they  are  driven,  is  as  absolute  as 
natural  necessity:  and  it  is  as  much  out  of  their  power  to  choose  that 
which  is  right,  as  to  perform  it. 

Suppose  all  the  horrors  of  hell,  and  the  glories  of  heaven,  were 
presented  to  my  view  at  once;  and  that  God  should  demand  of  me 
to  choose  this  eternal  torment,in  preferenceto  everlasting  happiness: 
I  feel  that  it  would  be  as  impossible  for  me  to  do  it,  as  to  pull  the 
moon  from  her  orbit.  There  is  not  a  man  upon  earth,  or  a  devil 
in  hell,  that  absolutely  chooses  misery  for  its  own  sake,  and  would 
rather  be  miserable  than  happy.  Though  they  choose  sin  in  pre- 
ference to  holiness,  it  is  not  because  they  are  unwilling  to  be  hap- 
py, for  our  Saviour  tells  us,  that  unclean  spirits  are  continually 
Tt 


326  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

going  about  seeking  rest,  though  they  are  not  seeking  holiness: 
and  we  know  the  same  is  true  with  respect  to  all  sinners  in  the 
world;  a  plain  proof  surely,  that  they  do  not  choose  sin  becaasg 
they  love  misery,  which  is  absolutely  impossible,  but  because  they 
hate  the  difficulty  of  reformation,  and  are  under  a  delusive  notion, 
that  sin  is  better  than  righteousness.  Milton  represents  the  devil 
as  saying,  "Evil  be  thou  my  good:"  and  it  is  evident,  that  his 
ohoice  of  moral  evil  is  founded  upon  some  delusive  notion  of  goodf 
otherwise  he  would  not  be  seeking  rest  in  the  constant  practice  of 
unrighteousness. 

Whether  any  being, has  lost,  or  ever  will  so  lose  all  power  of 
volition,  as  to  be  totally  unable  to  alter  the  direction  of  his  choice, 
or  to  suspend  his  evil  acts  for  a  moment,  I  do  not  take  upon  my- 
self to  determine:  1  know  of  no  evidence  for  or  against  it,  in  any 
part  of  the  creation. 

What  I  contend  for  is,  that  if  there  be  such  a  creature  any 
where,  there  is  no  more  power  of  action,  or  of  optional  choice  in 
him,  than  there  is  in  a  stone  that  is  rolling  down  a  hill:  they  both 
move  on,  in  a  certain  way,  but  it  is  by  the  same  fatality,  and  it  is 
very  evident  that  the  stone  is  in  itself  as  completely  passive  when 
rolling  down  the  hill,  as  when  lying  still  upon  the  ground.  So  is 
the  devil,  if  his  power  of  volition  be  totally  abolished,  and  if  he  be 
passive  as  a  vessel  that  is  carried  by  wind  and  tide. 

It  is  as  unjust  to  demand  a  person  to  choose  when  it  is  not  in  his 
power,  as  to  demand  of  him  to  act  when  it  is  not  in  his  power.  If 
you  command  your  servant  to  take  a  journey  to  the  moon,  the  act 
is  not  in  his  power,  and  you  cannot  punish  him  for  disobedience 
without  being  a  tyrant.  If  you  command  him  to  love  coals  of  fire 
better  than  bread,  and  to  eat  them  in  the  place  of  it,  in  this  case, 
though  there  would  be  no  natural  impossibility  in  his  doing  the  out- 
ward action,  yet  the  choice,  as  it  related  to  the  regulation  of  his  af- 
fection, would  be  impossible,  and  the  demand  as  tyrannical  as  the 
former.  He  might,  through  fear  of  a  greater  evil,  choose  to  eat 
coals  of  fire,  but  to  love  them  better  than  bread,  would  be  absolute- 
ly impossible. 

For  me  to  blame  or  punish  my  child  for  not  setting  his  affection 
on  things  above,  when  he  could  have  no  conception  of  such  things, 
would  be  as  ridiculous  as  lo  blame  him  for  not  flying  to  the  clouds. 
The  latter  implies  a  natural  impossibility,  the  former  a  moral  im- 
possibility, both  of  which  are  equally  absolute  and  irresistible. 

We  should  regard  with  a  just  sense  of  indignation,  the  wretch 
that  would  burn  his  cattle  to  death,  for  not  voluntarily  assembling 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^27 

three  times  a  week  for  the  purpose  of  public  worship:  yet  they 
have  a  natural  power  to  assemble  themselves  together;  but  their 
obedience  to  the  injunction  would  be  morally  impossible,  because 
they  have  no  conception  of  divine  worship,  nor  consequently  of 
their  master's  commandment. 

If  the  devil  has  lost  all  power,  so  that  it  is  impossible  for  him 
to  have  the  least  controul  over  any  of  his  thoughts  or  actions,  his 
case  is  most  deplorable:  and  though  he  alone  is  to  blame  for  the 
whole,  yet  his  guilt  consists,  not  in  the  condition  in  which  he  now 
is,  but  in  the  voluntary  acts  of  wickedness  which  brought  him 
there.  The  whole  of  his  guilt  consists  in  running  into  the  dismal 
gulf;  and  eternal  justice  will  never  blama  him  for  not  coming 
out,  when  it  is  not  in  his  power.  It  is  enough  for  him  to  endure 
the  punishment  due  to  his  voluntary  crimes:  heaven  will  never 
augment  his  misery  by  an  unjust  and  unmerciful  imputation  of 
crimes,  in  which  he  was  as  perfectly  passive  and  involuntary  as  a 
stone,  and  therefore  as  incapable  of  moral  responsibility  for  his 
present  actions. 


SECTION  IX. 

Of  man's  natural  inability  to  do  good. 

It  will  be  said,  if  man  be  utterly  unable  to  recover  himself, 
then  all  sinners,  while  in  a  natural  state,  (if  the  above  doctrine  be 
true,)  remain  innocent  and  excusable  in  the  midst  of  all  their 
crimes,  because  they  have  no  power  do  any  thing  that  is  good. 
Answer: 

First,  that  man,  since  the  fall,  has  no  natural  power  to  recover 
himself,  and  change  his  own  heart,  is  readily  granted:  but  that 
either  men  or  devils  are  totally  destitute  of  all  power  to  suspend 
any  of  their  wicked  actions,  remains  yet  to  be  proved.  When  a 
man  tells  a  lie,  blasphemes  his  Maker,  or  steals  his  neighbour's 
goods,  will  any  one  say  he  had  not  a  natural  power  to  tell  the 
truth,  to  keep  his  tongue  from  blasphemy,  or  his  hands  from  in- 
truding upon  his  neighbour's  property  at  midnight.'^  True,  say 
you,  he  had  a  natural  power  to  avoid  these  things,  if  he  would; 
fcut  he  had  no  power  to  choose  otherwise  than  he  did;  therefore  it 


B2S  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

was  morally  impossible  for  him  to  do  so,  and  yet  he  was  guilty, 
and  punishable  by  the  magistrate,  because  he  was  under  no  natu- 
ral necessity  of  perpetrating  those  crimes.  This  is  the  sophistry 
that  has  too  long  imposed  upon  the  world,  and  deluded  thousands 
into  the  metaphysical  refinements  of  predestination. 

Suppose  two  men,  of  equal  bodily  powers,  go  together  and  kill 
an  innocent  neighbour;  one  is  in  possession  of  his  rational  and 
moral  faculties,  and  the  other  is  totally  delirious:  now  I  presume 
any  court  of  justice  in  the  world  would  condemn  one  as  a  murder- 
er, and  decide  that  the  other  is  no  criminal,  and  deserves  not  to  be 
punished  as  such.  But  they  both  had  a  natural  povrer  to  stay  at 
home,  and  their  natural  power  was  the  same  in  degree:  consequent- 
ly the  judicial  decision  would  be  founded  on  the  principle,  that 
the  delirious  person,  being  morally  incapable  of  self-government, 
was  no  longer  an  accountable  agent,  though  he  was  as  free  from 
the  controul  of  natural  necessity,  as  the  man  who  is  pronounced  a 
murderer. 

If  natural  power  alone  renders  a  being  morally  accountable, 
then  surely  the  beasts  of  the  field  are  proper  subjects  of  moral 
government;  for  they  all  possess  natural  power,  and  in  many  in- 
stances a  higher  degree  of  it  than  man.  Does  not  a  lion  or  atyger 
possess  far  more  natural  power  than  an  infant.'*  And  is  natural 
power  alone  the  ground  of  moral  responsibility.^  Then  if  an  in» 
fant  deserves  damnation,  it  is  certain  those  beasts  of  the  wilderness 
deserve  it  in  a  tenfold  degree.  If  natural  power  alone  is  not  the 
ground  of  moral  responsibility,  then  it  follow  s  inevitably  that  sin- 
ners possess  something  more,  that  is,  the  moral  power  of  choice, 
or  self-government,  otherwise  they  are  not  responsible  for  their 
actions.  "-No  art  can  set  aside  the  consequence." 

By  the  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  power,  we  com- 
monly mean  the  power  to  act  and  the  power  to  choose;  but  we 
ought  carefully  to  observe  that  the  former  word  is  ambiguous:  it  ig 
sometimes  limited  to  the  natural  actions  of  the  body;  at  other 
times  every  choice,  or  volition,  is  called  an  action  of  the  mind. 
A  less  equivocal  distinction  would  be,  to  say  a  natural  power  con- 
sists in  being  able  lo  perform  natural  actions;  amoral  power,  in  be- 
ing able  to  perform  moral  actions.  The  latter  is  inseparable  from  a 
conception  of  the  rules  of  moral  obligation,  the  foundation  of 
which  is,  that  ''no  being  is  responsible  for  what  is  not  in  his  power, 
and  that  all  beings  capable  of  understanding  the  rules  of  duty  are 
bound  to  conform  to  them  so  far  as  their  power  extends."  To 
clear  this  matter  a  little  farther,  let  us  weigh  the  following  par- 
ticulars. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^9 

1.  A  power  to  do  any  thing,  essentially  includes  a  power  to 
leave  it  undone,  otherwise  it  is  done  by  necessity,  which  is  no 
power  at  all.  To  say  a  necessary  action  of  any  being  is  perform- 
ed by  the  power  of  that  being,  is  to  say  a  stone  possesses  power 
when  rolling  down  a  hill,  or  that  the  action  of  a  man's  blood,  or 
the  regular  and  involuntary  beating  of  his  heart,  is  performed  by 
the  power  of  that  man. 

2.  The  proper  notion  of  power,  tlierefore,  is  the  liberty  of  op- 
tion, to  perform  an  action,  or  to  omit  the  performance  of  it.  If  he 
cannot  omit  it,  he  has  no  power  over  it,  but  acts  by  uncontrollable 
necessity.  Consequently  any  being  who  has  power,  has  liberty  in 
exact  proportion;  and  he  who  has  no  liberty  has  no  power. 

3.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  for  any  being  to  have  power  to  do 
an  action,  without  having  power  to  choose  to  do  it.  Have  I  power 
to  rise  from  this  seat,  and  walk  across  the  room?  If  I  have,  I  pos- 
sess power  at  the  same  time  to  omit  it,  and  continue  where  I  am: 
but  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  walk  and  sit  still  at  the  same  time; 
it  is  equally  so,  for  me  to  determine  and  at  the  same  time  not  de- 
termine to  rise  and  walk:  the  volition  or  determination  must  neces- 
sarily precede  the  action,  unless  it  be  said  I  walk  against  my  will, 
and  then  surely  I  am  compelled  by  some  other  power,  or  else  I 
will  to  do  a  thing,  and  at  the  same  time  will  not  to  do  it,  which  is 
a  palpable  contradiction.  You  command  your  servant,  saying, 
come  here  immediately:  he  answers,  sir,  I  will  come  immediately; 
but  I  will  not  come.  You  look  at  him  w  ith  astonishment,  and  can- 
not conceive  what  he  means.  Does  he  mean  that  he  will  come  to 
you,  and  stay  where  he  is  at  the  same  time?  If  he  stay  away,  you 
conclude  he  spoke  a  falsehood  in  saying  "I  will  come  immediately;" 
and  if  he  come  to  you  immediately,  he  spoke  false  in  saying  "I 
will  not  come."  But  neither  of  these  would  be  a  falsehood,  what- 
ever his  action  might  be,  if  it  be  really  true  that  a  man  can  will  to 
do  an  action,  and  at  the  same  time  will  not  to  do  it.  A  man  may  do 
many  things  against  his  desire,  propensity  or  inclination;  but  to 
do  any  thing  voluntarily  against  his  will,  is  absolutely  impossible, 
and  involves  a  plain  contradiction 

But  if  a  man  cannot  act  against  his  will,  then  he  must  willhe- 
fore  he  can  act:  consequently  if  he  has  no  power,  or  liberty  of  op- 
tion, to  choose  or  determine,  he  has  no  power  over  the  action  which 
depends  upon  that  determination. 

4.  Suppose  sinners  have  a  natural  poMcr  to  act  right,  or  to 
avoid  acting  wrong,  but  at  the  same  time  have  no  power  to  alter 
their  choice  or  determlQation:  and  suppose  also,  for  the  sake  of  ar- 


S30  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

gument,  that  a  person  may  perform  an  action,  without  being  able 
to  choose  to  perform  it:  these  persons,  we  say,  have  no  power  to 
choose  otherwise  than  they  do;  but  they  have  power  to  act  other- 
wise, and  this  is  the  ground  ol  their  condemnation:  if  so,  they  are 
condemned  for  not  acting  against  their  will;  and  if  they  should  al- 
ter their  actions,  while  their  will  and  determination  is  the  same, 
the  whole  ground  of  their  guilt,  as  to  their  present  actions,  would 
be  entirely  removed.  Thus  our  opponents  are  forced  to  say  the 
true  service  of  God  consists  in  a  man's  acting  according  to  the 
commandments,  while  his  will  and  determination  are  against  them, 
or  to  acknowledge  that  their  argument  founded  on  the  distinction 
between  natural  and  moral  power,  at  once  falls  to  the  ground. 

5.  As  to  devils,  or  disembodied  spirits,  there  can  be  no  distinc- 
tion between  their  power  to  choose  and  their  power  to  act:  because 
all  their  actions  are  intellectual,  and  consist  in  the  operations  of 
the  will,  controlling  and  directing  the  thoughts,  judgments  and 
rational  operations  of  the  understanding,  as  also  tlie  management 
of  the  affections  in  loving,  hating,  hoping,  fearing,  and  the  like. 
Their  power  to  choose  and  to  act  cannot  therefore  be  separated, 
even  in  thought,  unless  we  suppose  them  to  be  corporeal,  or  to 
have  power  to  influence  the  elements;  of  course  their  power  con- 
sists solely  in  their  liberty  of  will;  and  if  they  have  no  liberty  they 
have  no  power,  and  their  thoughts  run  on  in  an  invariable  chan- 
nel, as  a  river  runs  into  the  sea. 

6.  If  sinners  have  no  power  by  nature  to  do  good,  it  is  neverthe- 
less possible  for  them  to  be  less  wicked  than  they  are;  and  so  far 
as  men  or  devils  have  power  to  omit  their  wicked  actions,  so  far 
they  are  accountable;  aud  every  avoidable  act  of  evil,  proportion- 
ably  increases  their  guilt.  Brutes  are  clear  of  guilt,  not  because 
they  have  no  power  of  choice,  for  they  evidently  have  a  degree  of 
natural  or  animal  liberty,  but  because  they  have  no  conception  of 
moral  principles,  and  no  power  to  acquire  such  a  conception.  If 
they  understood  tlie  rules  of  morality,  and  choose  to  violate  them, 
when  they  had  power  to  do  otherwise,  they  would  be  guilty  as 
well  as  we;  but  having  no  conception  of  this  kind,  they  are  desti- 
tute of  moral  liberty,  properly  so  called,  and  are  not  accountable 
for  their  actions. 

7.  So  far  as  any  being  chooses  by  necessity  so  far  his  liberty  is 
abridged,  and  if  his  choice  be  thus  controlled  in  all  things,  he  is 
destitute  of  power,  and  has  no  more  agency  than  a  stone  or  a  clod 
of  earth:  every  thought  rises  in  his  mind  as  necessarily  as  matter 
gravitates  or  tends  to  the  centre,  and  he  is  as  unable  to  alter  the 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  331 

direction  of  a  single  desire,  judgment,  idea  or  conception,  as  I  am 
now  unable  to  direct  the  sun,  or  invert  the  order  of  the  stars  of 
heaven.  Whether  there  be  any  creature  in  this  state,  or  whe- 
ther it  do  not  imply  a  total  destruction  of  an  intellectual  nature,  is 
beyond  my  comprehension,  and  I  must  let  it  rest  undecided,  as  a 
matter  which  is  too  wonderful  for  me. 

Several  other  questions  would  rise  out  of  this  metaphysical  sub- 
ject, into  which  my  objector  has  led  mej  but  this  is  not  the  proper 
place  to  consider  them,  and  I  must  at  present  omit  them  and  return 
to  the  objection.* 

Secondly,  man,  in  the  present  objection,  is  considered  as  being 
left  in  the  ruins  of  the  fall,  abstracted  from  all  interpositions  of 
grace,  and  then  it  is  concluded  that  he  is  totally  unable  to  do  any 
thing  that  is  good.  But  supposing  grace  had  not  interposed  in  his 
favour,  Adam  would  have  been  immediately  condemned  before 
any  mortal  descended  fromf  his  loins.  Therefore,  as  our  personal 
existence  was  the  effect  of  divine  goodness  in  redemption,  we  are 
not  left  absolutely  in  a  state  of  nature;  but  "the  grace  of  God  which 
bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all  men,  teaching  us,  that, 
denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly, 
and  righteously,  and  godly,  in  this  present  world."  Admitting 
then  that  man  has  no  power  to  do  good  in  a  state  of  nature,  unas- 
sisted by  the  grace  of  God;  yet  the  power  to  do  good  is  restored  to 
all  men  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  those  who  abuse  this 
gracious  liberty  are  guilty  and  justly  condemned:  "for  this  is  the 
condemnation  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved 
darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  are  evil." 

But  it  does  not  hence  follow  that  those  are  now  guilty  for  not 
doing  good,  who  have  lost  the  power,  and  never  had  it  restored  to 
them.  Did  God  ever  require  of  men  to  change  their  hearts  and 

*The  doctrine  of  necessity  is  advocated  by  president  Edwards, 
who  dwells  largely  upon  tlie  argument  which  Dr.  Reid  tells  us 
was  first  invented  by  Mr.  Hobbes,  and  who  oft'ers  several  other  ar- 
guments, with  no  inconsiderable  degree  of  ingenuity,  in  opposition 
to  the  power  of  optional  choice,  and  in  defe.ice  of  universal  fatali- 
ty. I  omit  a  particular  examination  of  his  arguments  at  present, 
for  these  two  reasons:  1.  It  would  lead  into  too  great  a  digression 
from  the  chief  design  of  the  present  essay.  3.  The  objections  he 
urges  against  moral  agency,  hiue  been  fully  examined,  and  re- 
futed in  a  masterly  manner 'by  Dr.  Reid.  See  his  fourth  essay  on 
the  active  powers  «of  the  Iibeity  of  moral  agents."  American  edi- 
.  tion,vol.  2.  page  399. 

t  See  section  VI.  of  this  chapter. 


332  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

prepare  themselves  for  heaven,  without  the  assistance  of  his  grace? 
Did  he  ever  blame  them  for  rejecting  eternal  life  before  it  was  of- 
fered to  them?  Did  he  ever  tantalize  any  with  the  oft'er  who  he 
knew  had  no  power  to  receive  it?  Or  condemn  them  for  burying 
a  talent  which  they  never  had? 

It  may  be  objected  again,  "that  infants,  being  clear  of  guilt, 
need  no  salvation  through  Christ:  as  all  their  moral  defilement  is 
consistent  with  perfect  innocence,  they  are  naturally  tit  for  hea- 
ven, and  therefore  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Redeemer,  seeing 
his  errand  upon  earth  was  to  seek  and  save  that  which  was  lost.'* 
The  answer  is  easy: ' 

1.  Though  infants  themselves  are  not  guilty,  yet  the  guilt  of 
their  original  father  would  have  prevented  their  personal  exis- 
tence, and  consequently  all  the  blessings  of  life  and  eternal  salva- 
tion, had  it  not  been  for  the  redemption  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Therefore  though  Adam  stood  in  need  of  a  Saviour  to  remove 
guilt  from  his  soul,  which  infants  do  not,  yet  they  are,  to  counter- 
balance it,  beholden  to  redemption  for  their  very  breath  and  being, 
which  Adam  originally  was  not. 

2.  Had  not  Adam  been  redeemed,  his  posterity,  though  not  lost 
with  him  in  everlasting  misery,  would  nevertheless  have  been  for- 
ever lost  from  that  conscious  existence  and  eternal  felicity  which 
was  originally  intended  for  them.  And  are  they  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  Jesus  Christ,  for  saving  them  from  such  a  loss,  and  bring- 
ing them  into  a  happy  existence?  If  not,  Adam  was  under  no 
obligation  to  God  for  his  creation.  To  dwell  forever  in  the  regions 
of  despair,  is  doubtless  the  greatest  loss  that  can  be  imagined; 
but  the  gloomy  silence  of  non-existence  would  also  be  such  a  loss, 
that  men  or  angels  would  shudder  at  the  prospect.  As  to  the  no- 
tion, that  all  mankind  had  some  mysterious  existence  in  Adam's 
loins,  and  were  after  the  fall  exposed  to  some  kind  of  unconscious 
damnation  in  him,  which  they  must  have  suffered  for  their  part  of 
the  guilt,  if  a  Saviour  had  not  interposed,  I  confess  I  cannot  un- 
derstand it.  Is  it  any  thing  different  from  an  absolute  privation  of 
life,  oris  it  another  method  of  expressing  the  same  thing?  I  sup- 
pose nobody  w^ill  say  we  were  really  alive  in  Adam,  or  that  we 
were  conscious  and  u7iconscioiis  at  the  same  time.  Many  have 
adopted  tbis  inexpliciible  chimera,  1  suspect,  to  accommodate  them- 
selves to  the  hypothesis  of  reprobation,  that  all  mankind  were  real- 
ly guilty  of  Adam's  siu:  but  they  wish  at  the  same  time  to  avoid 
the  conseqiicuce  of  it,  that  infants  deserve  to  dwell  with  ever- 
lasting burnings.     Those  who  ar«  guilty,  surely  deserve  punish- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  333 

mentf  therefore  after  taking  for  granted  that  millions  of  creatures 
ill  Adam's  loins  were  in  some  sort  guilty,  they  conclude  they  ought 
in  some  sort  to  be  damned:  but  as  they  cannot  adopt  the  horrors 
of  Antinomian  free-wrath,  they  seem  to  be  under  the  necessity  of 
inventing  some  kind  of  fantastical  damnation,  unsupported  by 
scripture,  and  inconceivable  by  the  human  understanding.  Had 
Adam  been  condemned  and  executed  according  to  the  sentence,  his 
posterity  would  have  never  lived  either  in  heaven  or  in  hell:  they 
would  not  have  been  lost  in  conscious  misery,  but  they  would  have 
been  lost  to  all  life  and  conscious  happiness,  and  therefore  the  ex- 
istence and  subsequent  enjoyments  of  Adam's  posterity,  which 
were  forfeited,  are  restored  "through  the  redemption  that  is  itt 
Jesus  Christ." 

8.  We  do  not  affirm  that  infants  are  naturally  fit  for  heaven;  but 
we  affirm  that  as  nothing  but  positive  guilt  can  tit  a  person  for  hell, 
infants  will  never  be  fit  for  it  while  justice  has  any  place  in  the 
creation.  Is  there  no  medium  between  being  fit  for  heaven,  and  fit 
for  hell!  I  hope  no  man  will  say  the  beasts  and  the  fowls  of  the 
firmament  are  exactly  fit  for  hell;  or  that  they  are  naturally  fit  for 
heaven. 

It  is  evident  the  children  of  Adam  all  come  into  the  world  na= 
turally  fit  for  this  state  of  probation  which  God  has  appointed  for 
us;  and  that  some  change  must  take  place  to  fit  us  for  any  other  re- 
gion. Though  it  would  be  unjust  for  iufants  to  be  punished  as 
criminals,  yet  they  have  no  natural  right  to  eternal  happiness,  but 
a  gracious  right  through  the  merits  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And 
they  are  naturally  unfit  for  heaven,  not  because  they  are  guilty, 
but  because  heaven  is  intended  as  a  place  of  unobstructed  enjoy- 
ment, where  temptation  shall  never  enter.  If  they  were  taken  there 
with  natural  propensities  to  evil,  they  would  be  placed  in  a  state 
of  perpetual  temptation,  and  would  be  in  constant  danger  of  fall- 
ing into  sin:  therefore  God  prepares  them  for  heaven  before  ho 
takes  them  thither,  not  because  justice  had  any  charge  of  crimi- 
nality against  them,  but  because  goodness  delights  to  place  them 
in  a  state  of  complete  enjoyment,  far  above  the  regions  of  evilj 
where  no  trial  or  temptation  shall  ever  disturb  their  tranquillity. 

In  what  way  God  produces  or  works  this  change  in  those  who 
die  in  infancy,  we  may  be  unable  to  comprehend:  nor  is  this  won-* 
derful,  since  we  cannot  comprehend  the  manner  in  which  he  ope- 
rates upon  the  minds  of  men,  or  how  he  upholds  and  governs  the 
general  system  of  the  universe.  A  change  produced  in  the  infant 
miad  involves  no  contradiction,  any  more  than  a  change  wrought 
X5  u 


334,  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

in  any  other  mind:  its  possibility  is  conceivable,  and  the  evidence 
is  clear,  unless  we  have  not  clear  evidence  that  heaven  is  intended 
as  a  place  of  perfect  enjoyment,  free  from  every  kind  of  evil. 

Whatever  be  the  way,  in  which  this  change  may  be  produced, 
it  is  evidently  a  great  blessing,  because  it  raises  us  above  the 
force  of  temptation,  and  secures  us  from  the  influence  of  sin  and 
misery:  this  blessing,  therefore,  as  well  as  all  the  glories  of  heaven, 
come  upon  infants  in  consequence  of  the  mediation  of  the  Saviour, 
none  of  which  they  ever  would  have  enjoyed,  had  not  his  inter- 
position rescued  Adam  from  that  instant  destruction  which  he  had 
incurred  by  his  rebellion. 

The  millions  who  have  left  otir  polluted  region,  before  they 
knew  their  right  hand  from  their  left,  will  therefore  join  with  (he 
innumerable  company  of  heaven,  to  sing  the  song  of  praise  and 
thanksgiving  "to  Him  that  hath  redeemed  us  by  his  own  blood, 
and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  to  God  and  his  Father:  to  him 
be  glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever."  Amen.  ' 


SECTION  X. 

*3  consequence  of  the  doctrine  established  in  the  foregoing  sections, 
that  death  is  necessary  in  the  case  of  infants,  hut  is  not  a  penalty. 

If  the  suffering  and  death  of  infants,  and  sanctified  christians, 
be  the  result  of  goodness,  then  it  Mas  necessary  they  should  suf- 
fer and  die,  to  prevent  a  greater  evil,  or  to  promote  a  lasting  good 
to  come. 

This  consequence  is  genuine,  and  we  adopt  it  without  hesita- 
tion. To  say  punishment  is  inflicted  on  any  creature  through  be- 
nevolence, and  yet  that  it  is  totally  unnecessary,  and  tends  not  to 
the  creature's  advantage,  is  quite  absurd  and  contradictory. 

That  the  afflictions  of  the  righteous  are  intended  for  their  good, 
and  answer  gracious  ends  under  the  divine  administration,  is  evi- 
dent from  innumerable  texts  of  scripture,  and  especially  from  the 
unequivocal  declaration  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians:  "Our  light 
afliiction,  wbich  is  but  for  a  moment,  m  orketh  for  us  a  far  more 
exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of  glory.*'  2  Cor.  iv.  17. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  333 

God  is  not  only  represented  as  a  kind  father,  who  chastens  his  chil- 
dren for  their  good,  which  implies  a  fault  on  their  part;  but  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  frequently  called  our  physician,  whose  office  leads 
him  to  give  pain  for  a  moment,  because  it  is  necessary;  and  this 
may  be  done,  and  often  is  done  by  physicians,  when  there  was  no 
previous  fault  in  the  subject,  but  merely  because  there  was  a  dis- 
order, which  the  affliction  or  momentary  pain  had  a  tendency  to 
remove. 

A  kind  parent  may  subject  his  children  to  a  degree  of  misery, 
to  promote  three  benevolent  ends.  (1.)  For  a  correction  of  their 
faults.  (2.)  For  their  trial  and  establishment  in  good  principles. 
(3.)  For  the  removal  of  any  disease  or  disorder  in  their  constitu- 
tion. 

These  are  the  ends  of  affliction,  when  the  pain  is  produced  from  a 
benevolent  intention  towards  the  suffering  subjects.  When  punish- 
ments are  inflicted  on  criminals,  without  any  regard  to  the  crim- 
inals themselves,  but  purely  for  the  sake  of  others  whom  their 
crimes  have  injured,  this  is  the  operation  of  justice.  Where  the 
design  is  to  defend  the  injured,  and  at  the  same  time  to  reform  the 
offender,  this  is  the  joint  operation  of  justice  and  compassion. 

These  things  being  premised,  we  have  now  several  inquiries  to 
make: 

1.  Are  infants  and  christians  punished  with  death,  and  with 
foregoing  afflictions,  merely  ^and  solely  for  the  sake  of  defending 
others  from  the  influence  of  their  crimes.^  If  so,  they  are  punish- 
ed exactly  for  the  same  ends  for  which  devils  are  punished  in  hell. 

2.  Are  they  punished  to  defend  the  rights  of  others,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  produce  in  themselves  a  conviction  of  their  guilt,  that 
they  may  be  influenced  to  reform?  If  so,  they  are  punished  for  the 
same  ends  for  which  notorious  offenders  are  sometimes  loaded 
with  irons,  or  kept  in  confinement  for  a  term  of  years.  Or  for  the 
same  ends  for  which  the  special  judgments  of  God  sometimes  fall 
upon  a  wicked  man,  and  sometimes  upon  a  wicked  nation. 

3.  Are  their  afflictions  to  be  considered  as  the  chastisements  of 
a  kind  father  for  the  correction  of  their  faults.''  That  christians 
are  often  thus  punished,  is  evident  both  from  scripture  and  expe- 
rience; but  there  is  no  shadow  of  evidence  that  this  will  hold  res- 
pecting infants,  unless  it  can  be  proved,  first,  that  they  have  com- 
mitted faults,  and,  secondly,  that  their  sufterings  are  calculated  to 
bring  them  to  a  sense  of  them,  that  they  may  thereby  be  influenced 
to  repent  and  be  more  diligent  in  the  ways  of  righteousness. 


m  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

If  a  parent  should  chastise  his  new-born  infant,  under  pretence 
of  correcting  its  faults,  we  should  justly  consider  him  as  an  unna-^ 
^ural  and  barbarous  tyrant.  And  our  judgment  would  be  perfectly 
correct,  because  it  would  be  founded  upon  these  two  obvious  rea- 
sons: (1.)  that  the  said  child  was  incapable  of  committing  any 
fault,  and  (3.)  that  it  was  equally  incapable  of  conceiving  for 
what  end  the  punishment  was  inflicted.  After  its  understanding 
is  sufficiently  opened,  discipline  may  be  exercised  from  a  benevo- 
lent intention,  because  it  is  now  able  to  conceive  the  design  of  it, 
and  has  in  some  degree  the  power  of  self-government;  but  to  sup- 
pose a  parent  may  cohsistently  and  righteously  chastise  a  new-born 
infant  for  its  faults,  is  highly  absurd  and  ridiculous:  how  much 
jnore  so,  to  impute  such  conduct  to  the  all-wise  and  Almighty  Fa- 
ther of  universal  being? 

Neither  can  it  be  supposed  that  infants  are  punished  for  a  trial 
pf  their  virtue;  because  they  have  no  conception  of  the  thing  in- 
tended, and  are  incapable  of  a  moral  influence,  until  their  under- 
standings Si]t  enlarged  sufficiently  to  have  some  conception  of  an 
obligation 

God  certainly  has  some  end  in  view,  in  subjecting  infants  to 
fhisery  and  death,  otherwise  he  afflicts  them  for  nothing,  to  sup- 
pose which,  is  not  only  to  contradict  his  moral  attributes,  but  to 
charge  him  with  whimsical  caprice  and  folly. 

The  dilemma  is  therefore  unavoidable,  that  God  has  no  more  re- 
gard to  their  benefit,  in  their  afflictions,  than  he  has  to  the  benefit 
of  devils  in  their's,  or  that  their  sufferings  are  intended  for  their 
advantage;  and  the  only  advantage  we  are  able  to  conceive  is  that 
their  sufferings  are  designed  to  counteract  the  original  consequen- 
ces of  Adam's  transgression,  sp  far  as  they  have  descended  to  pos- 
terity. 

Nor  let  any  take  occasion  to  infer  that  this  involves  the  doctrine 
pf  a  death-purgatory,  if  the  design  of  such  a  purgatory  is  under- 
stood to  be  the  removal  or  purging  away  of  our  guilt:  for  this  lakes 
for  granted  that  infants  are  guilty,  which  has  been  abundantly  re- 
futed. 

That  death  is  intended  to  counteract  the  effects  of  sin,  both  in 
^nfants  and  christians,  must  be  admitted,  or  else  it  is  utterly  un- 
^lecessary,  is  never  advantageous,  and  therefore  can  never,  in  any 
f  ase,  be  considered  as  a  blessing. 

Will  it  be  said  that  it  is  a  blessing,  because  it  puts  an  end  to  all 
Qurmiseries.^  This  is  saying  plainly  that  no  part  of  the  misery  it- 
geif  is  a  blessing,  but  merely  that  the  end  of  it  is  so:  th{^t  is,  that 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  837 

the  affliction  in  itself  has  no  good  effect,  and  was  never  so  intend- 
ed, but  .nerely  th  it  our  deliverauce  from  it  is  a  blessing.  Was 
not  the  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a  moment,  intended  to  re- 
move the  causes  of  misery,  by  removing  those  natural  and  invo- 
luntary proj)ensities,  ^vhich  would  otherwise  continue  still  to  be  a 
perpetual  source  of  temptation.^  Or  shall  we  say  that  all  christians, 
who  are  saved  from  tlieir  sins,  are  at  the  same  time  delivered 
from  all  natural  propensities  to  evil?  If  they  are,  I  would  be  glad 
to  know  how  the  paius  of  death  are  still  necessary,  how  (hey  pro- 
duce any  good  effect  in  our  favour, — and  why  dying  christians  are 
to  receive  the  bitter  cup  as  a  blessing  from  the  hand  of  their  hea- 
venly Father.?  When  a  disorder  and  all  the  effects  of  it,  arc  remov- 
ed fro  n  thp  coastitiition  of  a  patient,  will  he  receive  any  pain  as 
a  blessing  from  the  physician's  hand,  which  is  utterly  unneces- 
sary, and  has  no  tendi'uey  to  do  him  any  good.*^ 

Nothing  is  more  common,  says  Mr.  Fletcher,  than  for  men  to 
run  into  one  extreme,  under  the  plausible  pretence  of  avoiding 
another.  Our  Calvinist  brethren  have  believed  and  taught  that  all 
christians  must  necessarily  commit  sin  as  long  as  they  live,  and 
that  death  is  intended  to  remove  all  their  iniquities  from  them.  I 
apprehend  the  mistake  of  many  pious  men  among  them,  consists 
in  taking  for  granted  that  a  man  commits  sin  every  time  he  feels  a 
propensity  to  it.  They  observe  the  signs  of  those  propensities  con- 
tinue with  good  men,  the  very  best  not  excepted,  apparently  to  the 
end  of  their  pilgrimage:  hence  they  conclude  that  no  man  in  this 
life  can  be  saved  from  sin;  but  that  the  goodness  of  God  has  ap- 
pointed death  as  the  means  of  its  final  destruction. 

Admitting  the  premises  to  be  true,  I,  for  one,  would  cordially 
acquiesce  in  theirconciusion:  and  if  they  will  confine  it  to  sin,  im- 
properly so  called,  that  is.  to  those  natural  propensities,  the  en- 
tire removal  of  which  does  not  at  all  depend  upon  our  voluntary 
exertions,  the  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  clearest  evidence.  But 
if  they  mean  that  all  christians  must  really  commit  sin  as  long  as 
they  live,  and  that  death  alone  puts  an  end  to  our  actual  sinning; 
this  is  contradicted  by  the  joint  testimony  of  the  inspired  writers, 
who  agree  to  declare,  that  "Jesus  saves  his  people  from  their  sins, 
that  they  may  walk  before  him  in  righteousness  and  holiness  all 
the  days  of  their  life."  This  has  been  sufficiently  proved  by  Mr. 
.  Wesley  and  Mr.  Fletcher,  to  whose  excellent  works  I  refer  the 
reader. 

The  consequences   of  the   opposite   opinion  are  alarming:  for 
good  men  are  thereby  discouraged  in  their  pursuit  of  holiness,  and 


338  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

many  luke-warm  professors,  it  is  to  be  feared,  take  encouragement 
to  indulge  themselves  in  sin,  under  pretence  that  they  must  sin  of 
necessity,  until  death  brings  them  a  discharge. 

It  is  therefore  necessary  for  us  to  make  a  firm  stand  against 
sueh  a  pernicious  delusion.  But  let  us  beware  at  the  same  time  that 
we  do  not  run  inlo  an  opposite  delusion  equally  pernicious.  This 
may  be  done  in  two  ways:  (1.)  by  believing  that  christians  may  in 
this  life  be  delivered  from  all  propensities  to  evil,  and  (2.)  by 
maintaining,  under  pretence  of  opposing  a  death-purgatoi-y,  that 
death  is  totally  unnecessary,  and  has  no  tendency  to  our  advan- 
tage. 

1.  Shall  we  say  that  sanctified  christians  are  as  perfectly  clear 
of  evil  propensities  as  an  angel.^  If  so,  their  warfare  against  such 
propensities  is  accomplished,  and  though  the  devil  still  may 
tempt  them,  yet  they  have  nothing  in  their  nature  to  oppose,  any 
more  than  those  who  are  now  in  heaven.  If  they  still  feel  any  ex- 
citement in  their  nature,  which  requires  an  effort  of  resistance, 
this  is  what  I  mean  by  an  evil  propensity:  and  to  suppose  they  are 
entirely  removed  from  sanctified  christians,  is  a  delusion,  I  appre- 
hend, nearly  as  pernicious  in  its  effects  as  the  opposite  one.  Many 
1  fear  have  long  pursued  christian  holiness,  under  the  delusive  no- 
tion that  it  consists  in  a  deliverance  from  all  propensities  to  evil, 
and,  finding  their  labour  vain,  have  abandoned  the  pursuit,  and 
Lave  settled  themselves  down  with  attainments  in  religion,  far  be- 
low those  which  it  was  tlieir  privilege  to  enjoy. 

That  we  may  guard  against  this  danger,  and  at  the  same  time 
give  no  encouragement  to  sin,  let  us  endeavour  to  obtain  distinct 
conceptions  upon  a  matter  in  which  we  are  so  seriously  and  deep- 
ly interested. 

It  is  true,  full  sanctification  includes  a  deliverance,  not  only 
from  all  gross  violations  of  the  divine  law,  but  also  from  all  sinful 
passions  and  temjiers. 

But  what  is  a  sinful  temper?  It  consists  in  an  habitual  attach- 
ment or  inordinate  affection  to  something  beside  God.  A  sinful 
passion  is  ^.momentary  attachment  of  the  same  kind.  A  man  loves 
the  world,  or  perhaps  he  loves  himself  more  than  he  ought:  this  is 
an  evil  temper,  and  while  he  makes  no  immediate  efforts  against 
it,  there  is  a  perpetual  consent  of  his  will  to  love  something  more 
than  it  ought  to  be  loved.  Many  indulge  such  inordinate  affections 
for  months  or  years,  without  noticing  them,  through  mere  care- 
lessness, or  want  of  self-examination.  They  know  not  what  man- 
ner of  spirit  they  are  of^  and  may  plead  that  they  are  not  conviuc- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  339 

ed  of  any  wrong  aftection,  and  their  conscience  does  not  condemn 
them;  but  this  excuse  is  vain,  because  they  neglect  to  consult  their 
conscience,  or  do  not  consult  it  properly,  and  in  consequence,  re- 
main ignorant  of  that  which  might  be  known  by  a  proper  exercise 
of  attention  and  reflection.  After  they  received  conviction  of  the 
evil  temper,  they  interrupt  its  settled  course  by  a  few  feeble  etforts, 
seldom  repeated;  but  in  general  there  is  an  inordinate  aftection  ex- 
isting with  the  consent  of  their  will,  and  this  is  a  sin,  properly  so 
called,  because  it  is  a  voluntary  consent  of  the  will  to  that  which 
the  understanding  knows,  or  may  know,  to  be  wrong. 

They  may  indeed  have  a  desire  to  be  delivered  from  such  tem- 
pers, at  the  same  time  that  they  make  no  eftbrt  against  them;  but 
it  is  to  be  remembered  that  will  and  desire  are  not  the  same  thing. 
If  I  have  a  disordered  tooth  that  is  very  troublesome,  I  may  sit 
for  a  long  time  with  a  desire  to  have  it  out;  but  the  moment  I  ivill 
or  determine  to  have  it  immediately  extracted,  I  make  an  eftbrt  to 
that  effbet.  An  indolent  person  may  have  a  strong  desire  to  im- 
prove his  farm,  while  he  does  nothing;  but  when  he  determines 
that  he  will  improve  it,  you  see  him  go  to  work.  A  timorous 
traveller  may  sit  for  hours  upon  the  bank  of  a  stream  that  looks 
dangerous,  with  a  strong  desire  to  be  over;  this  desire  alone  will 
produce  no  eftect;  but  when  he  determines  that  he  will  cross  it,  he 
plunges  into  the  water.  In  like  manner  when  a  man  ivills  to  over- 
come his  evil  tempers,  he  labours  and  uses  the  proper  means 
whereby  he  may  obtain  the  victory. 

It  is  true,  a  man  may  will  or  determine  to  do  a  thing  at  some  fu- 
ture period,  without  any  present  exertions;  but  in  the  mean  time  his 
will  consents  that  it  shall  remain  undone  till  the  period  arrives 
which  he  has  appointed.  A  sinner  appoints  a  time,  perhaps  five 
years  hence,  when  he  shall  have  accomplished  certain  purposes, 
and  resolves  that  at  that  time  he  will  seek  the  Lord,  and  call  upon 
him  while  he  is  near:  the  man  is  not  the  less  guilty  on  account 
of  this  resolution,  because  he  determines  that  he  will  not  seek 
the  Lord  at  present,  but  will  postpone  it  for  five  years:  there- 
fore during  the  five  years  he  willingly  lives  without  God  in  the 
world.  So  a  christian  with  evil  tempers  may  desire  and  wish 
they  were  removed;  he  may  determine  that  some  time  or  other  he 
will  oppose  them  with  vigour:  yet  he  remains  a  voluntary  sinner 
■  for  the  present,  because  his  w  ill  is  not  immediately  exerting  itself 
against  them,  but  resolves  to  postpone  it  to  some  future  period. 
Such  a  man  is  an  imperfect  christian,  and  is  not  saved  from  sin. 
He  neglects  that  which  he  knows  to  be  his  immediate  duty,  that  is, 


340  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

he  neglects  to  use  or  exert  the  power  he  now  possesses,  which  is 
properly  a  sin,  because  it  is  voluntary. 

Perhaps  he  loves  present  e«sp  too  well,  and  hence  refuses  to  pur- 
sue the  knowledge  of  duty  with  that  vigilance  which  is  within  his 
power;  or,  through  an  undue  attachment  to  some  other  object  or 
party,  he  voluntarily  indulges  some  prepossession  or  bias  of  mind, 
which  refuses  to  give  truth  a  fair  hearing.  This  is  an  evil  tem- 
per, and  it  prevails  not  in  any  man  that  is  saved  from  sin.  A  pre- 
possession arising  from  invincible  ignorance  is  no  crime;  but  so 
far  as  its  existence  depends  upon  our  neglecting  to  use  the  power 
we  possess,  so  far  it  is  sinful,  because  it  is  a  voluntary  disaftection 
to  the  truth.  How  innumerable  are  the  prejudices  indulged,  even 
by  christians  themselves,  and  what  is  most  lamentable,  thousands 
seem  not  to  suspect  that  there  is  any  immorality  in  them!  What 
an  object  of  pity  must  that  man  be,  who  imagines  himself  so  per- 
fect as  to  be  free  from  all  propensities  to  evil,  and  at  the  same 
time  has  such  inordinate  attachment  to  some  party  or  interest,  as 
influences  him  to  shut  his  eyes  against  the  light  of  evidence,  and 
refuse  to  give  it  an  impartial  hearing!  he  is  resolved,  if  possible, 
that  nothing  shall  be  proved  or  received  as  true,  that  differs  from 
his  former  opinions,  or  from  those  of  his  particular  friends,  whom 
he  is  disposed  to  support  in  every  thing  they  say,  for  no  other  rea- 
son hut  because  they  say  it!  The  strmger  your  arguments  are 
against  his  favourite  opinioii,  the  more  he  is  offended;  and  he  has 
recourse  to  stratagem,  if  not  to  secret  malevolence,  to  put  you  to 
silence,  and  to  hinder  all  he  can  from  hearing  you  with  that  can- 
dour of  which  he  himself  is  destitute.  Is  this  a  perfect  man?  cer- 
tainly he  is  not,  unless  we  say  the  love  of  truth  makes  no  part  of 
the  christian  character. 

Now  the  word  of  God  assures  us  we  may,  in  this  life,  obtain  sal- 
vation from  all  such  evil  tempers,  so  as  to  love  the  Lord  our  God 
with  all  our  heart,  and  to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves.  He  that 
does  this  is  saved  from  all  pride,  malice  and  prejudice;  and  he 
loves  nothing  in  the  world  with  a  higher  degree  of  affection  thaa 
that  which  is  perfectly  just  and  good. 

We  will  suppose  a  man  stands  here,  who  is  thus  saved  from  sin. 
His  affections  are  now  rightly  balanced,  and  he  is  resolved  to  keep 
them  so.  By  and  bye  he  feels  some  excitemeat  in  his  nature,  which 
he  finds  has  a  tendency  to  lead  him  to  love  some  object  more  than 
he  ought,  and  he  cannot  maintain  the  present  balance  of  his  af- 
fections, without  resisting  that  excitement  by  a  voluntary  effort, 
of  which  he  is  conscious. 


PLAN  OF  SALTATION.  34* 

This  is  what  I  mean  by  a  propensity  to  evil,  in  contradistinctioii 
ttt  an  evil  temper,  or  inordinate  affection.  The  propensity  tends 
to  produce  the  inordinate  affection,  and  if  not  resisted  will  pre- 
sently lead  the  soUl  into  it;  but  if  a  firm  stand  be  made  against  it, 
if  his  will  refuse  to  yield,  even  for  a  moment,  to  its  influence, — 
he  has  kept  the  balance  of  his  affections  with  the  magnanimity  of 
a  christian,  and  he  is  so  far  from  being  a  sinner  merely  on  account 
of  the  feeling  which  he  manfully  re&istedj  that  he  fought  a  good 
fight,  and  kept  the  faith,  and  if  he  continue  thus  to  fight,  until  he 
i,h?i\llia.ve  finished  his  cowrse,  there  remaineth,  henceforth,  for 
him,  a  crown  of  righteousness  which  the  Lord  the  righteozis  judge 
will  give  him  at  that  day: 

Hence  we  easily  avoid  the  flimsy  objection,  that  if  evil  pro- 
pensities be  no  sin,  we  need  not  oppose  them:  for  if  they  be  not 
resisted,  the  soul  yields  to  be  carried  by  them  into  an  evil  affec- 
tion, which  is  sin.  We  miglit  as  well  say,  if  it  be  no  sin  for  a  mau 
to  be  tempted,  then  there  is  no  necessity  for  us  to  resist  tempta- 
tion. We  ought  (0  oppose  our  evil  propensities  with  perpetual 
diligence,  and  to  use  all  means  in  our  power  to  avoid  every  occa- 
sion that  would  bring  them  into  operation.  And  this  should  be 
done,  not  because  they  in  themselves  are  siii,  but  because  it  is  a 
sin  for  a  man  voluntarily  to  seek  temptation,  or  to  run  into  the  oc- 
casions of  it,  when  duty  does  not  call  him  there.  Our  Saviour 
teaches  us  to  pray  that  we  may  not  be  led  into  temptation;  this  is 
one  branch  of  the  prayer  which  he  taught  his  disciples;  therefore 
we  are  bound  to  avoid  temptations  as  long  as  we  can  with  a  safe 
Conscience,  and  to  resist  them  when  they  are  unavoidable. 

My  reasons  for  believing  that  christians  have  no  grounds  to  ex- 
pect deliverance  from  evil  propensities  in  this  life,  and  for  op- 
posing the  contrary  belief,  are  the  following: 

1.  The  highest  perfection  God  has  promised  to  his  people  in 
this  life,  is  to  enable  them  to  love  him  with  all  their  heart,  and  to 
love  their  neighbour  as  themselves:  that  is,  to  have  their  affections 
balanced  as  they  ought  to  be.  But  this  state  may  be  enjoyed  not- 
witfistaudiug  those  propensities,  so  long  as  they  ace  properly  re- 
sisted. 

3.  Such  a  deliverance  (as  here  opposed)  is  contrary  to  univer- 
sal experience.  Many  christians  may  have  lived  for  a  considerable 
time  without  feeling  any  thing  in  their  nature  to  need  resistance:  but 
some  unexpected  insult,  or  ofher  occasion,  makes  them  feel  that 
their  virtue  cannot  yet  be  maintained  without  a  struggle.  In  proof 
of  this  we  may  appeal  to  their  own  consciousness,  and  if  that 
*     Xx  » 


343  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

avail  nothing,  we  may  next  appeal  to  the  observations  of  their 
neighbours,  who  have  often  seen  the  signs  of  a  painful  warfare  in 
their  bosom. 

3.  The  sentiment  I  oppose,  supercedes  the  necessity  of  con- 
stant self-denial:  for  if  there  be  nothing  in  a  man's  nature  but  what 
is  uniformly  prone  to  goodness,  and  nothing  prone  to  evil,  then  he 
cannot  deny  himself,  or  any  thing  in  himself,  without  resisting  a 
propensity  to  perfect  goodness.  If  you  command  this  man  to  deny 
himself,  you  command  him  to  resist  and  oppose  his  propensity  to 
do  right,  seeing  there  is  no  other  propensity  in  his  nature. 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  commands  us,  not  only  to  resist  the  de- 
vil, but  to  deny  ourselves,  and  take  up  our  cross  daily,  which 
plainly  implies  that  there  is  something  in  ourselves  which  must  be 
crossed  and  denied  daily,  because  it  has  a  tendency  to  lead  us  into 
sin,  and  will  certainly  do  it,  unless  it  be  resisted.  Why  are  we  to 
cross  and  deny  any  of  our  natural  appetites,  but  because  there  is 
a  propensity  or  tendency  in  them  to  rise  too  high,  -and  to  produce 
an  evil  temper,  if  not  an  evil  action.''  If  there  be  nothing  in 
them,  or  any  other  part  of  our  nature,  but  what  is  regularly  prone 
to  that  which  is  right,  and  to  nothing  else,  we  cannot  cross  or  deny 
our  appetites,  or  any  other  part  of  ourselves,  without  being  actual 
sinners,  because  we  would  actually  oppose  the  influence  of  per- 
fect goodness. 

4.  I  oppose  this  doctrine,  and  wish  it  banished  out  of  the  world, 
for  the  sake  of  many  good  men,  the  very  best  not  excepted,  who 
through  the  influence  of  this  pernicious  delusion,  have  spent  many 
hours  of  fruitless  grief  and  lamentation,  merely  because  they  felt 
evil  propensities  in  their  nature.  "A  godly  sorrow  worketh  repen- 
tance to  salvation;"  but  such  sorrow  as  this  is  a  fruitless  waste  of 
that  time  which  might  be  spent  in  rejoicing  with  the  "blessed  man 
that  endureth  temptation:  for  when  he  is  tried  he  shall  receive  the 
crown  of  life  which  the  Lord  has  promised  to  them  that  love 
him." 

5.  I  presume  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  possessed  as  high  a 
state  of  perfection  as  we  have  aright  to  look  for;  but  they  were 
not  delivered  from  the  warfare  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit; 
for  8t.  Paul  says,  "I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjec- 
tion; lest  that  by  any  means,  when  1  have  preached  to  others,  I 
myself  should  be  a  cast-awuy."  1  Cor.*ix.  27.  Does  not  this  plain- 
ly suppose  that  there  was  still  a  tendency  in  his  natural  afiections, 
or  the  appetites  of  his  body,  to  lead  him  into  excess.^  And  there- 
fore that  he  found  it   necessary  to  exercise  temperance,  and  keep 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  ^43 

his  body  in  subjection,  as  it  were  with  a  bridle,  lest  the  flesh  should 
prevail  against  the  spirit?  And  how  could  this  be,  if  there  was 
nothing  in  his  flesh,  or  any  other  part  of  his  nature,  but  what  was 
uniformly  prone  to  goodness? 

These  excitements  or  tendencies  in  our  nature  which  need  re- 
sistance, I  have  called  propensities,  because  I  know  no  better 
name  to  give  them.  They  differ  from  evil  tempers  and  aftections 
in  this,  that  they  are  perfectly  involuntary,  and  are  no  more  under 
the  control  of  our  will  than  the  circulation  of  the  blood:  Nay, 
they  are  s>o  far  from  arising  from  a  wrong  direction  of  the  will, 
that  we  often  feel  them  when  the  whole  force  of  the  will  is  exert- 
ed in  a  contrary  direction.  They  agree  with  other  temptations  in 
every  particular,  excepting  only  that  the  occasion  of  the  tempta- 
tion is  in  our  nature.  Am  1  a  sinner  merely  because  certain /eeZ- 
ings  rise  from  my  constitution  which  tend  to  lead  me  into  sin.^ — 
And  suppose  the  temptation  comes  immediately  from  the  devil, 
does  it  not  produce  a.  feeling  of  the  same  tendency,  which  must  be 
resisted  by  a  painful  exertion?  I  appeal  to  the  consciousness  of 
every  living  christian.  And  if  a  man  is  a  sinner  on  account  of 
the  excitement  or  feeling  which  arises  from  his  body  or  animal  na- 
ture, he  is  a  sinner  for  the  same  reason,  when  resisting  the  pain- 
ivA  feelings  of  which  he  is  conscious,  when  tempted  by  the  devil. 
Thus  it  appears,  a  man  who  expects  deliverance  from  this  war- 
fare with  the  flesh  in  this  life,  expects  to  be  above  his  Lord,  who 
was  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin. 

6.  I  oppose  this  doctrine  because  I  conceive  it  to  be  of  danger- 
ous tendency.  I  fear  some  christians  have  been  led  to  make  false 
and  enthusiastic  professions  of  those  imaginary  heights  of  holiness 
which  surpass  the  lot  of  humanity;  and  supposing  there  was  no- 
thing now  remaining  in  their  nature  to  resist,  have  abated  in  their 
vigilance,  and  suspected  no  danger,  till,  like  Peter,  in  an  un- 
guarded hour,  they  have  fallen  into  sin,  by  not  Avatching  with  a 
jealous  eye  over  those  propensities  which  they  vainly  imagined 
had  no  more  existence.  , 

Some,  it  may  be,  have  held  their  profession  of  this  high  sancti- 
fication  in  opposition  to  their  own  consciousness:  have  felt  those 
propensities  time  after  time  in  their  nature,  and  still  refused  to 
believe  it.  At  length,  being  weary  of  doing  violence  to  themselves, 
they  have  given  up  the  belief  of  their  freedom  from  natural  ex- 
citements to  evil,  and  with  it  their  confidence  in  christian  holi- 
ness. Others  attempt  for  a  while  to  go  on  to  perfection;  but  ob- 
serving that  such  a  complete  deliverance  from  natural  propensi- 


au  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

ties  is  no  where  verified  in  any  of  their  religious  friends,  they  con- 
clude the  doctrine  of  christian  perfection  is  a  chimera  that  exists 
po  where  but  in  the  imaginations  of  men. 

Thus  it  appears  to  me,  if  we  were  bent  upon  bringing  men  back 
by  degrees  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  that  it  is  a  vain  thing  to 
seek  for  perfection,  and  that  all  men  must  continue  sinners  as  long 
as  they  live,  we  could  scarcely  devise  a  more  successful  method 
of  doing  it,  than  by  straining  the  doctrine  of  sanctification  so  far, 
as  to  make  it  imply  a  deliverance  from  all  natural  propensities 
to  evil. 

2.  It  is  indeed  a  very  dangerous  error,  to  suppose  death  is  ap- 
pointed as  the  means  of  our  deliverance  from  sin:  the  merits  of 
Christ,  and  the  operations  of  his  spirit  are  the  cause  of  our  de- 
liverance, and  repentance  and  faith  are  the  means  of  it.  If  there- 
fore we  neglect  the  means  appointed  in  the  gospel,  and  live  in  our 
sins  till  death,  under  the  belief  that  death  is  the  mean  appointed 
for  its  removal,  when  it  is  not,  what  mistake  can  be  imagined  to 
he  ipore  dangerous.^ 

But  is  there  no  way  to  guard  against  this  mistake,  but  to  run 
into  another,  and  to  explode  all  ideas  of  advantage  from  our  last 
affliction,  in  mere  opposition  to  the  frightful  name  of  a  death-pur- 
gatory.^ If  we  had  no  other  evidence  against  it,  and  had  no  other 
■way  to  defend  ourselves  against  the  attacks  pf  our  opponents,  thaa 
to  cast  upon  them  the  odium  of  the  name,  purgatory,  such  a  pitiful 
argument  would  l?e  truly  beneath  their  attention.  The  popish 
doctrine  itself,  concerning  a  place  of  purification  after  death, 
pould  never  be  proved  false  if  we  had  no  argument  against  it,  but 
the  deformity  of  the  name  by  which  it  is  called.  We  reject  it  be- 
cause it  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  is  an  error  of  very 
dangerous  tendency:  remove  these  objections,  and  we  can  draw  no 
arguments  frojn  the  name,  because  it  is  as  perfectly  innocent  as 
the  name  of  paradise. 

But  though  reason  can  derive  no  evidence  from  a  mere  name, 
yet  prejudice  can  accomplish  wonders  by  its  magical  influence. — 
How  many  have  rnn  head-long  into  various  opinions,  and  adher- 
ed to  them  for  no  other  reason  but  their  dread  of  suyh  shocking 
names  as  the  following:  Popery— Heretic— Calvinism— Armin- 
ianism— Pelagianism — Socinianisni — Arianism- — Free-wilier--^ 
Perfectionist—Antiuomian— Legalist— Democracy— Federalism, 

&,c.  &c. 

Prejudice,  passion  arjd  party  nonsense,  appear  to  govern  the  be- 
lief of  thousands  both  in  church  and  state.     When  a  man  is  car^ 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  845 

fied  away  in  this  mamier,  the  very  name  by  Avhich  the  opposite 
party  is  denoininatefl,  acquires  such  dismal  and  fearful  deformity, 
that  he  can  scarcely  hear  it  mentioned,  or  think  of  it,  with  any 
degree  of  patience.  The  farther  he  goes  from  every  sentiment 
held  by  his  opponents,  the  more  meritorious  is  his  conduct.  He 
dreads  the  very  suspicion  of  his  agreeing  with  them  in  any  thing; 
and  rather  than  be  found  in  such  detestable  company,  he  will  sup- 
press the  voice  of  reason,  and  renounce  the  plainest  dictates  of 
common  sense.  To  be  true  to  his  own  party,  he  must  follow  them 
in  all  their  absurdities,  and  never  suft'er  his  soul  to  call  into  ques- 
tion a  single  sentiment  which  they  hold,  or  deviate  a  moment  from 
any  part  of  their  practice.  Their  opinions  must  all  be  taken  for 
granted,  and  his  business  is,  not  to  inquire  what  is  truth,  but  to 
defend  his  own  sect  or  party  in  every  particular,  and  to  refute  the 
opposite  by  frequently  repeating  their  name  with  indications  of 
Bcorn  and  detestation.  He  will  not  venture  to  examine  any  senti- 
ment held  by  his  party,  or  to  admit  the  possibility  of  their  being 
mistaken,  lest  he  should  be  thought  not  hearty  in  the  cause:  he  is 
equally  afraid  to  examine  the  sentiments  of  the  other  party,  with 
*ny  degree  of  candour,  lest  his  own  brethren  should  consider  him 
a  disaffected  character,  and  brand  him  with  the  frightful  name  of 
his  adversaries,from  which  he  would  shrinkback  as  from  the  open- 
ing grave.  In  this  manner  has  error  often  triumphed  under  the 
fostering  influence  of  party  malevolence,  while  truth  had  to  retire 
among  the  lonely  valleys,  and  reason  to  disappear,  or  to  lie  insult- 
ed, prostrate  on  the  ground. 

AVithout  pursuing  this  digression,  though  not  an  unimportant 
one,  we  return  to  inquire  what  other  objection  can  be  alleged 
against  the  gooduess  of  God  making  death  an  instrument  of  bene- 
fit to  his  creatures. 

Will  it  be  said  it  robs  Christ  of  his  glory,  by  attributing  to  death 
what  his  grace  alone  is  able  to  accomplish?  This  argument  of  rob- 
bing  Christ  of  his  glory,  so  often  urged  by  the  Calvinists,  may,  il 
is  true,  be  retorted  uponthemselves;  but  it  has  no  solidity  against 
either  us  or  them.  If  we  had  no  other  argument  but  this  against 
their  doctrine,  that  death  is  an  instrument  of  our  deliverance  from 
the  power  of  sin,  I  apprehend  it  would  prove  just  nothing,  and 
might  be  retorted  upon  ourselves  with  success.  We  disbelieve 
their  doctrine,  not  because  it  would  of  necessity  rob  Christ  of  his 
glory,  which  is  an  hypothesis  unsupported  by  scripture  or  reason, 
but  because  the  Mord  of  God  assures  us  we  may  be  saved  from  our 
pins  before  death,  and  that  repentance  and  faith,  not  the  agonies  of 


S^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

dissolution,  are  the  means  through  which  this  salvation  is  to  be 
received. 

]f  Christ  cannot  make  use  of  means  and  instruments,  in  the 
work  of  our  salvation,  without  diminishing  his  own  glory,  he  must, 
if  he  would  secure  the  whole  glory  to  himself,  lay  them  all  aside, 
and  do  every  thing  by  an  invisible  influence,  without  the  interven- 
tion of  men  or  books,  law  or  gospel,  prayers  or  sacraments,  or 
any  other  means  of  grace.  And  permit  me  to  ask,  why  is  one  in- 
strument which  he  is  pleased  to  make  use  of,  more  calculated  to 
rob  hini  of  his  glory  than  another?  He  doubtless  uses  the  means 
best  calculated  to  promote  the  end  intended;  and  when  that  end  is 
the  production  of  a  moral  influence  on  the  mind,  our  voluntary  use 
of  them  is  demanded;  but  when  they  are  designed  to  produce  an 
effect  upon  any  part  of  our  constitution,  that  is  not  under  the  im- 
mediate control  of  our  will,  God  himself  applies  the  means  with- 
out our  voluntary  concurrence,  and  produces  the  effect  intended: 
hence  I  conclude,  our  salvation  from  all  "voluntary  transgressions 
of  a  known  law"  is  accomplished  through  the  use  of  means  that  are 
put  in  our  power,  and  the  use  of  which  depends  upon  our  choice. 
For  the  same  reason  I  conclude  that  involuntar}'  propensities, 
such  as  infants  have,  are  removed  from  their  nature  when  necessa- 
ry, by  means  which  depend  not  upon  their  choice.  I  believe  death  is 
the  instrument  made  use  of,  because  1  must  believe  that  the  death 
of  infants  is  designed  for  their  advantage,  or  charge  God  with  the 
cruelty  or  folly  of  punishing  them  for  nothing,  or  of  imputing  siil 
to  them  that  he  may  treat  them  as  guilty  rebels,  upon  the  false 
charge  of  a  crime  which  they  never  committed. 

Is  this  the  way  to  avoid  robbing  Christ  of  his  glory,^  And  as  our 
lives  are  prolonged  by  the  instrumentality  of  bread,  and  our  health 
restored  by  various  kinds  of  medicine,  does  it  follow  from  this  that 
the  God  of  nature  and  providence  is  robbed  of  his  glory?  But  at  the 
same  time  that  we  maintain  that  the  death  of  infants  is  intended 
for  their  own  final  benefit,  we  believe  it  equally  true  that  their 
suffering  promotes  other  just  andgracious  purposes. 

It  affords  an  universal  argument  to  prove  the  direful  tendency 
pf  sin;  and  evinces  that  it  not  only  violates  the  rights  of  men  and 
angels,  and  tends  to  ruin  the  moral  faculties  of  the  sinner;  but  its 
pernicious  effects  descend  to  the  latest  posterity,  and  our  helpless 
infants  come  into  the  world  with  such  disorderly  prepensities  of 
nature,  as  are  to  be  removed  by  remedies  no  less  severe  than  the 
lingering  pains  of  dissolution.  Thus  all  men  who  will  exercise 
their  reason,  may  be  benefitted  by  the  state  of  infants,  inasmuch 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  347 

as  their  condition  affords  evidence  of  an  original  apostacy,  and 
thereby  establishes  the  truth  of  revelation,  and  at  the  same  time 
furnishes  the  most  powerful  motives  to  flee  from  sin,  as  the  moral 
poison  which  has  contaminated  the  human  race,  and  which,  if  not  ar- 
rested in  its  progress  would  establish  an  universal  empire  of  misery. 

The  groans  and  tears  of  dying  children  are  also  used  by  provi- 
dence as  a  just  punishment  and  correction  to  their  parents,  who  of- 
ten feel  nearly  or  quite  as  great  pain  in  their  souls,  as  the  children 
feel  in  tbeir  dissolution. 

In  proof  of  this  we  will  select  one  remarkable  instance.  Nathan, 
when  reproving  David  for  his  sin  against  Uriah,  said,  "Because 
by  this  deed  thou  hast  given  great  occasion  to  the  enemies  of  the 
Lord  to  blaspheme,  the  child  also  that  is  born  unto  thee  shall 
surely  die.  And  the  Lord  struck  the  child  that  Uriah's  wife 
hare  unto  David,  and  it  was  very  sick.  David  therefore  besought 
God  for  the  child;  and  David  fasted  and  went  in,  and  lay  all  night 
upon  the  ground.  And  the  elders  of  his  house  arose,  and  went  to 
him,  to  raise  him  up  from  the  earth:  but  he  would  not,  neither  did 
he  eat  bread  with  them." — 3  Sam.  xii.  14<. 

Thus  it  appears  that  David's  soul  endured  such  severe  affliction 
that  he  refused  all  consolation,  and  abandoned  himself  to  fasting 
and  lamentations.  And  as  seven  days  elapsed  before  the  child  was 
dead,  the  parent's  heart,  during  all  that  time,  was  oppressed  with 
a  load  of  conscious  misery  and  distress.  After  the  child's  depar- 
ture, he  took  refreshment,  and  said,  "While  the  child  was  yet 
alive,  I  fasted  and  wept:  for  I  said,  who  can  tell  w  hether  God  will 
be  gracious  to  me,  that  the  child  may  live.  But  now  lie  is  dead, 
wherefore  should  I  fast.^  Can  I  bring  him  back  again.''  I  shall  go 
to  him,  but  he  shall  not  return  to  me." — Ver.  22,  23. 

What  abundant  matter  was  here  for  humble  and  serious  medita- 
tion! I  almost  fancy  I  can  see  the  royal  psalmist  watering  the 
ground  with  his  briny  tears,  as  thousands  have  done  in  all  ages  of 
the  world.  He  lies  prostrate  before  God,  weeping,  and  feebly  offer- 
ing his  plaintive  cries  to  heaven,  in  all  the  teaderuess  of  paternal 
griefl  Domestic  comforts  fail  him;  the  siglit  of  his  spouse  and  love- 
ly offspring  only  serves  to  increase  his  agony,  wliile  his  houses 
and  friends  are  forgotten,  and  the  beauties  of  nature  have  lost  all 
their  charms!  Can  silver  and  gold  assuage  his  inquietude.'^  Can 
.orchards,  and  gardens  dissipate  the  gloom,  and  alleviate  the  bur- 
den of  his  grief?  x-^las!  they  are  all  neglected,  his  table  abandoned, 
and  his  servants  expostulate  in  vain!  He  bt'hoids  his  little  help- 
less infant,  groaning,  sighing,  and  sinking  into  the  arms  of  death: 


348  AJv  ESSAY  ON  THE 

be  shrinks  back  Irnm  llie  mournfiil  spectacle,  arid  melts  down  with 
conscious  Avretchediiess,  into  all  the  tender  sympathies  of  a  par- 
ent's heart!  Mercifjil  God!  are  these  the  eftects  of  sin?  yes:  the 
seeds  of  evil  are  so  deeply  sown  in  human  nature,  that  they  have 
made  pain  become  necessary  as  an  instrument  of  God's  justice 
and  goodness:  justice  towards  the  actual  offenders,  and  goodness 
towards  their  helpless  and  unoffending  offspring.  And  David 
might  say,  "This  child  is  cut  down  as  a  flower  because  of  my  sin: 
had  1  walked  uprightlv,  he  might  have  lived  lo  manhood,  and  be- 
come tlie  comfort  and  stay  of  my  old  age.  But  alas!  my  own  ini- 
quities have  hastened  the  dying  agonies  of  my  child,  and  every 
pain  he  feels  is  like  a  sword  piercing  through  my  soul!" 

But  upon  the  gloomy  hypothesis  I  have  been  opposing,  these 
salutary  reflections  are  all  stifled  in  the  birth..  For  supposing  Da- 
vid had  believed  the  doctrine  invented  in  after  ages;  what  would 
have  been  his  natural  conclusions.^  "This  child,  he  might  have 
said,  lies  suffering  here,  because  he  is  guilty  of  Adam's  sin:  it  is 
most  abundant  goodness  that  his  miseries  are  not  doubled:  he  de- 
serves everlasling  damnation,  and  perhaps  when  this  breath  is 
gone,  he  Avill  be  a  companion  of  devils,  suflering  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire.  If  he  is  punished  for  my  sin,  this  could  not  be  done 
with  any  justice  or  equity,  unless  the  sins  of  parents  are  imputed 
to  their  children:  therefore  he  suffers  nothing  more  than  he  de- 
serves: and  I  will  no  longer  lament  under  the  delusive  notion  that 
my  guilt  is  the  cause  of  his  misery,  because  it  is  his  own  guilt,  not 
mine,  for  which  justice  now  demands  his  death.  And  if  indeed  a 
part  of  my  guilt,  be  transferred  to  him, I  am  consequently  less  guil- 
ty than  I  would  be  if  it  were  all  my  own:  I  may  therefore  dry  up 
my  tears,  and  leave  the  little  guilly  creature  to  his  fate." 

Such  barbarous  opinions,  if  I  mistake  not,  have  a  native  tenden= 
cy  to  harden  the  heart  of  man,  and  to  freeze  every  generous  senti- 
ment of  our  nature. 

Many  of  the  heathens,  to  imitate  the  malevolence  of  their  im- 
aginary gods,  have  suppressed  the  dearest  feelings  of  humanity, 
and  burnt  their  own  children  in  the  lire!  The  merciless  church  of 
Rome  has  exceeded  the  enormities  of  her  Pagan  motlier,  as  we 
have  seen:  and  the  unparalleled  tortures  she  invented  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  those  whom  she  considered  heretics  were  inflicted  un- 
der pretence  of  religion  and  piety  to  God!  They  believe  that  all 
infants  are  guilty,  and  deserve  eternal  destruction,  especially  the 
children  of  heretics.  Baptism  is  their  Saviour,  and  all  infants 
who  happen  to  die  without  being  baptized,  according  to  Bcllar- 
roine,  certainly  go  "to  the  hell  o,f  the  reprobates." 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  349 

These  are  the  sickeaning  fruits  of  a  superstitious  theology, 
which  attributes  to  the  benevolent  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh, 
the  cruel  principles  of  human  and  diabolical  depravity. 

It  has  been  sometimes  argued  that  God  has  no  such  feelings  as 
those  which  prevail  in  our  nature;  he  is  not  to  be  melted  down 
with  pity  and  sympathy  as  we  are;  therefore  all  appeals  to  hii- 
-manity  against  any  doctrine  of  religion,  are  altogether  nugatory, 
and  prove  nothing  but  the  ignorance  of  him  who  makes  the  ap- 
peal. 

And  who  was  it,  let  me  ask,  that  planted  those  feelings  of  hu- 
manity in  our  nature?  Is  not  God  the  author  of  them?  And  did  he 
not  plant  them  in  us  to  supply  the  deficiency  of  our  moral  good- 
ness? How  many  wretched  creatures  in  this  world,  would  be  ne- 
glected and  left  to  perish,  if  it  were  not  for  the  stimulating  influ- 
ence of  pity  and  sympathy?  How  many  are  therein  all  countries 
and  ages,  who,  without  any  regard  to  the  principle  of  benevolence 
or  justice,  are  influenced  to  preserve  their  offspring,  and  minister 
to  the  wants  of  the  miserable,  by  the  mere  operation  of  natural  af- 
fection, similar  to  that  w  hieh  prevails  in  the  inferior  animals?  If 
those  natural  feelings  were  removed  from  the  human  race,  and  if 
they  were  left  to  be  influenced  solely  by  their  regard  to  justice  and 
goodness,  I  presume  that  in  the  course  of  a  few  centuries  not  a  hu- 
man creature  would  be  found  upon  the  face  of  the  earth. 

If  we  were  under  the  perfect  and  uniform  influence  of  moral 
principles,  if  evil  ones  were  confined  to  the  regions  of  hell,  and 
had  no  place  in  this  part  of  the  creation,  then  we  should  be  more 
like  God  than  we  now  are,  and  there  would  be  no  necessity  for  the 
feelings  of  sympathy  that  are  now  so  essential  to  the  well-being 
of  human  society. 

Granting  then  that  God  has  not  the  feelings  which  prevail  in 
human  nature,  what  does  this  prove?  Does  it  prove  that  God  is  less 
disposed  to  promote  the  happiness  of  his  creatures,  and  to  prevent 
their  misery,  than  true  pity  inclines  us  to  be?  if  so,  it  would  seem, 
that  God  is  deficient  in  moral  goodness  as  well  as  man,  and  needs 
the  feelings  of  humanity  to  bring  him  up  to  our  standard. 

It  is  true,  that  natural  sympathies  may  be  misapplied  through 
ignorance  and  partiality,  as  well  as  every  other  principle  of  our  na- 
ture: but  then  the  end  for  which  they  were  given  is  defeated;  and 
when  so  directed,  they  tend  to  the  injury  of  mankind.  So  far  as  pi- 
ty leads  us  to  promote  universal  happiness,  and  to  prevent  misery, 
80  far  it  answers  the  end  for  which  divine  goodness  planted 
it  in  our  nature:  and  it  is  truly  absurd  to  suppose  that  it  ever 
Yy 


350  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

produces  in  us  a  greater  regard  to  general  happiness  than 
exists  in  that  Mind  whose  paternal  kindness  implanted  it  in  our 
nature,  for  the  very  purpose  of  supporting  and  guarding  the  felici- 
ty of  human  kind.  God  has  no  disposition  to  punish  any  creature 
in  earth  or  hell,  from  any  other  principle  but  his  regard  to  the 
rights  of  the  innocent,  and  the  general  welfare  of  the  creation: 
and  the  scripture  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishments  is  to  be  re- 
solved, not  into  his  being  destitute  of  our  feelings  of  humanity,  but 
into  the  direful  nature  and  tendency  of  moral  evil.  The  very  mo- 
ment we  suppose  that  he  ever  has  punished  any  creature  more 
than  is  strictly  necessary  to  the  support  of  general  happiness,  or 
that  he  ever  will  do  it  in  any  period  of  eternal  duration,  that  mo- 
ment we  charge  him  with  a  departure  from  the  principles  of  jus- 
tice and  benevolence. 

The  leason  why  devils  and  wicked  men  are  to  be  punished  ever- 
lastingly, is  because  they  will  be  everlastingly  hostile  to  the  go- 
vernment of  God,  and  could  never  be  released  from  their  dungeon 
without  becoming  a  general  nuisance  in  the  creation,  exerting 
themselves  to  diffuse  the  poison  of  iniquity,  and  to  assail  the  tran- 
quillity of  the  heavenly  regions. 


SECTION   XI. 

Second  consequence. 

The  brute  creatures  were  made  subject  to  vanity,  through  a  be- 
nevolent intention  in  the  Deity  towards  those  creatures;  they  are 
subjected  to  a  speedy  dissolution,  not  through  caprice  or  cruelty, 
but  because  it  is  rendered  necessary  by  their  connexion  with  a  per- 
verse and  sinful  race  of  men.  This  inference  we  may  admit  with- 
out hesitation,  because  its  truth  is  established  by  the  following 
evidence: 

1.  If  we  deny  this  conclusion,  we  must  say  God  punishes  the 
beasts  as  criminals,  accordiHg  to  the  requirements  of  inflexible 
justice:  this  supposes  them  to  be  guilty,  which  is  a  monstrous  hy- 
pothesis repugnant  to  every  principle  of  morality  and  common 
reason.  If  any  one  should  be  disposed  to  take  this  ground,  to  se- 
cure the  important  doctrine  of  infant  criminality,  shall  we  receive 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  35 1 

it  for  a  truth  merely  because  he  is  pleased  to  tell  us  it  is  so?  or 
shall  we  wait  for  him  to  prove  it  by  at  least  one  passage  of  scrip- 
ture, or  by  one  argument  that  will  bear  examination? 

2.  Men  are  commanded  to  abstain  "from  things  strangled,  and 
from  blood."  As  strangling  is  a  very  painful  kind  of  death,  and  as 
we  are  to  abstain  from  blood,  because  it  is  the  life  of  the  animal, 
we  are  thereby  plainly  taught  to  regard  the  life  of  inferior  crea- 
tures, aud  never  expose  them  to  unnecessary  pain.  This  is  a  plain 
dictate  of  conscience  and  humanity,  as  well  as  of  revelation;  and 
as  the  voice  of  God  thus  commands  us  not  to  inflict  pain  on  his 
creatures,  farther  than  is  strictly  necessary,  it  is  a  plain  proof 
that  he  is  kind  to  his  meanest  creatures,  and  is  unwilling  that 
they  should  suiTer  more  than  is  needful  to  subserve  the  ends  of  his 
benevolence.  Now  if  God  does  not  punish  the  brute  creatures  as 
criminals,  and  if  there  is  nothing  in  his  nature  which  influences 
him  to  do  it  for  no  end  but  the  mere  pleasure  of  seeing  them  tor- 
mented, it  remains  that  it  necessarily  arises  from  their  connexion 
with  the  human  race;  and  God  has  subjected  them  to  a  speedy  dis^ 
solution,  to  prevent  a  greater  evil,  or  to  promote  a  lasting  good  in 
future.  This  is  an  evident  deduction  from  the  nature  of  God,  as 
exhibited  in  the  bible,  and  reason  requires  us  to  admit  the  conclu- 
sion, even  though  we  were  unable  to  discover  how  those  ends  of 
divine  goodness  will  be  accomplished. 

3.  It  is  not  hard  to  understand  how  this  dispensation  of  God  is 
calculated  to  prevent  a  "greater  evil:  for  the  inferior  animals  are 
tortured  Avith  unrelenting  cruelty  by  wicked  men,  and  if  they 
were  not  released  by  death,  their  burden  would  be  augmented  and 
protracted  for  thousands  of  years.  The  very  animals  that  lived  in 
the  days  of  Adam  would  yet  be  groaning  under  the  hand  of  tyran- 
Dj-;  but  the  decree  of  heaven  has  fixed  bounds  beyond  Avhich  the 
barbarity  of  sinners  cannot  pass:  when  the  pain  is  brought  to  a 
certain  point,  death  gives  the  innocent  creature  a  discharge  from 
the  monster  that  takes  pleasure  in  its  agony,  and  who  would  per- 
haps, if  not  thus  prevented,  increase  its  misery  a  thousand-fold. 

"Not  only  the  feebler  creatures  are  continually  destroyed  by  the 
stronger;"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "but  both  the  one  and  the  other  are 
exposed  to  the  violence  and  cruelty  of  him  that  is  now  their  com- 
mon enemy,  man.  He  pursues  them  over  the  widest  plains,  and 
through  the  thickest  forests.  He  overtakes  them  in  the  fields  of 
air,  he  finds  them  out  in  the  depth  of  the  sea.  Nor  are  the  mild 
aud  friendly  creatures,  who  still  own  his  sway,  and  arc  duteous  to 
his  commands,  secured  thereby  from  more  than  brutal  violence, 


353  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

from  outrage  and  abuse  of  various  kinds.  What  returns  for  their 
long  and  faithful  service,  do  many  of  these  poor  creatures  find? 
And  what  a  dreadful  difference  is  therebetween  what  they  suffer 
from  their  fellow-brutes,  and  what  they  suffer  from  the  tyrant, 
man!  The  Lion,  the  Tyger,  and  the  Shark,  give  them  pains  from 
mere  necessity,  in  order  to  prolong  their  own  life,  and  put  them 
out  of  their  pain  at  once.  But  the  human  Shark,  without  any 
such  necessity,  torments  them  of  his  free  choice;  and  perhaps  con- 
tinues their  lingering  pain,  till  after  months  or  years,  death  signs 
their  release."* 

This  just  picture  may  be  finished  by  the  following  beautiful  lines 
of  Cowper; 

So  Eden  Mas  a  scene  of  harmless  sport, 

Where  kindness  on  his  part,  who  ruled  the  whole, 

Begat  a  tranquil  confidence  in  all, 

And  fear  as  yet  was  not,  nor  cause  for  fear. 

But  sin  marred  all;  and  the  revolt  of  man, 

That  source  of  evils  not  exhausted  yet, 

Was  punished  with  revolt  of  his  from  him. 

Garden  of  God,  how  terrible  the  change 

Thy  groves  and  lawns  then  witnessed!   Every  heart, 

Each  animal  of  every  name,  conceived 

A  jealousy  and  an  instinctive  fear, 

And,  conscious  of  some  danger,  either  fled 

Precipitate  the  loath'd  abode  of  man, 

Or  growl'd  defiance  in  such  angry  sort, 

As  taught  him  too  to  tremble  in  his  turn. 

Thus  harmony  and  family  accord 

Were  driven  from  Paradise;  and  in  that  hour 

The  seeds  of  cruelty,  that  since  have  swell'd 

To  such  gigantic  and  enormous  growth, 

AVere  sown  in  hnman  nature's  fruitful  soil. 

Hence  date  the  persecution  and  the  pain 

That  man  inflicts  on  all  inferior  kinds, 

Regardless  of  their  plaints.     To  make  him  sport, 

To  gratify  the  frenzy  of  his  wrath, 

Or  his  base  gluttony,  are  causes  good 

And  just  in  his  account,  why  bird  and  beast 

Should  suffer  torture,  and  the  streams  be  dy'd 

*  Sermons,  vol.  5,  p.  136. 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  ^gg 

With  blood  of  their  inhabitants  impal'd. 
Earth  groans  beneath  the  burden  of  a  war 
Wa»ed  with  defenceless  innocence,  while  he 
Not  satisfied  to  prey  on  all  around, 
Adds  tenfold  bitterness  to  death  by  pangs 
Needless,  and  first  torments  ere  he  devours. 

Witness  at  his  foot 

The  spaniel  dying  for  some  venial  fault 

Under  dissection  of  the  knotted  scourge; 

Witness  the  patient  ox,  with  stripes  and  yells 

Driven  to  the  slaughter,  goaded,  as  he  runs, 

To  madness;  while  the  savage  at  his  heels 

Laughs  at  the  frantic  sufferer's  fury,  spent 

Upon  the  guiltless  passenger  o'erthrown. 

He  too  is  witness,  noblest  of  the  train 

That  wait  on  man,  the  flight-performing  horse: 

With  unsuspecting  readiness  he  takes 

His  murderer  on  his  back,  and  push'd  all  day 

With  bleeding  sides  and  flanks,  that  heave  for  life^ 

To  the  far  distant  gaol,  arrives  and  dies. 

But  many  a  crime,  deem'd  innocent  on  earth, 
Is  register'd  in  Heav'n;  and  these  no  doubt 
Have  each  their  record,  with  a  curse  annex'd. 
Man  may  dismiss  compassion  from  his  heart. 
But  God  will  never.     When  he  charg'd  the  Jew 
To  assist  his  foe's  down-fallen  beast  to  rise; 
And  when  the  bush-exploring  boy,  that  seiz'd 
The  young,  to  let  the  parent  bird  go  free; 
Prov'd  he  not  plainly  that  his  meaner  works 
Are  yet  his  care,  and  have  an  interest  all, 
All,  in  the  universal  Father's  love.^ 

The  Task. 

Now  supposing  God  had  made  no  alteration  in  animal  nature 
after  the  fall  of  man;  but  had  left  the  unoffending  animals  in  a 
state  not  naturally  tending  to  dissolution:  uould  not  men  have  in- 
flicted greater  and  more  lingering  miseries  upon  them  than  they 
now  have  power  to  do.^  Or  will  any  one  say  that  the  flesh  of  beasts 
was  originally  made  of  iron,  and  their  bones  of  brass?  So  that  the 
lashes  of  the  whip,  or  the  operation  of  fire  and  sharpened  steel 
could  not  give  them  any  pain. 

They  were  free  from  misery  in  the  original  state  of  things,  not 
because  they  were  incapable  of  suffering,  but  because  there  was 


334  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

nothing  in  the  creation  to  hurt  them.  But  after  moral  evil  was  in- 
troduced, man  became  a  barbarian  to  inferior  animals,  as  matter 
of  fact  has  proved  in  every  age  of  the  world,  from  that  time  to 
the  present.  And  it  is  evident  the  very  animals  that  lived  in  the 
days  of  Adam  would  have  continued  in  a  state  of  painful  drudge- 
ry to  the  present  hour,  had  not  their  kind  Creator  terminated  their 
misery,  by  subjecting  them  to  a  speedy  dissolution. 

There  is  no  way  to  set  aside  this  conclusion,  but  by  supposing  tliey 
were  originally  incapable  of  being  made  to  suffer  by  any  art  that 
sinners  could  invent.  And  does  the  bible  tell  us  any  thing  about 
such  a  pitiful  hypothesis?  If  not,  on  what  ground  are  we  to  re- 
ceive it  as  a  truth?  Are  we  to  take  it  for  granted  without  any  evi- 
dence, merely  because  it  is  necessary  to  support  the  notion  that 
sin  was  originally  a  perfectly  harmless  thing  that  could  not  possi- 
bly hurt  any  creature  in  existence,  and  that  God,  Avith  liis  own 
hand,  first  brought  misery  into  the  creation? 

What  the  first  sin  of  angels  was  we  are  not  informed;  but  what- 
«?ver  it  might  be,  we  must  be  very  cautious  (as  those  imagine  who 
maintain  that  suffering  is  always  a  proof  of  guilt,)  how  we  admit 
that  it  had  any  natural  tendency  to  produce  misery  either  in  the 
sinners  themselves  or  their  fellow-creatures:  all  misery  must  arise 
from  the  execution  of  some  penalty,  otherwise  there  is  no  argu- 
ment left  to  support  the  great  doctrine  that  infants  and  brutes  are 
guilty.  When  Adam  sinned,  his  crime  is  supposed  to  have  been 
equally  harmless:  it  neither  produced  pain  nor  evil  propensities, 
as  its  natural  effect,  either  in  him  or  his  posterity:  and  had  God 
withheld  his  hand  from  executing  penalties,  it  seems,  all  mankind 
might  have  multiplied  their  crimes  to  the  present  day,  and  yet 
have  remained  as  perfectly  happy  as  they  were  in  Paradise;  and 
with  all  their  malice  and  fury  it  would  be  impossible  for  them  to 
give  a  moment's  pain  to  any  beast  in  the  creation! 

If  this  be  so,  it  follows  that  M'hen  God  first  inflicted  penalties 
on  account  of  sin,  it  was  not  done  to  defend  the  happiness  of  any 
living  creature;  for  the  tranquillity  of  all  remained  undisturbed, 
and  would  have  so  continued  to  eternity,  had  not  his  own  hand  first 
made  a  breach  upon  it  by  infiicting  his  penalties.  And  as  God  had 
no  regard  to  the  welfare  of  any  of  his  creatures,  in  punishing  sin, 
seeing  it  was  a  harmless  tiling  that  made  no  inroads  upon  their 
welfare;  therefore  he  introduced  misery  merely  to  gratify  some 
private  principle  in  himscH*,  which  could  never  i-est  satisfied  Avith- 
out  seeing  some  creature  tormented.  This  is  the  secret  principle 
that  runs  through   the  whole  scheme,  and  supports  the  enormous 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  S55 

system  of  sovereign  partiality  and  eternal  Feprobation!  Tins  se- 
cret, mysterious  and  amazing  justice,  arising  out  of  the  divine 
sovereignty,  is  the  Manicheau  principle  which  produces  all  the 
good  and  evil — all  the  happiness  and  misery  to  be  found  in  hea- 
ven, earth,  or  hell!  Shall  we  take  courage,  and  renounce  this  dis- 
mal view  of  things?  Or  must  we  conclude  that  "we  cannot  let  it 
go  without  giving  up  at  the  same  time  the  greatest  part,  if  not  all, 
of  the  essential  articles  of  the  christian  faith?" 

4.  As  God  is  thus  kind  and  good  to  his  meanest  creatures,  and 
proves  that  he  has  a  perpetual  regard  for  their  well-being;  who 
will  undertake  to  declare  that  he  has  no  benevolent  intention  to 
establish  their  happiness,  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  have  destroy- 
ed the  works  of  the  devil,  "at  the  times  of  restitution  of  all  things, 
which  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets 
since  the  world  began?" 

"The  creature,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "every  creature  was  subject- 
ed to  vanity,  to  sorrow,  to  pain  of  every  kind,  to  all  manner  of 
evils.  Not  indeed  willingly;  not  by  its  own  choice;  nor  by  any  act 
or  deed  of  its  own;  but  by  reason  of  him  that  subjected  it;  by 
the  wise  permission  of  God,  determining  to  draw  eternal  good  out 
of  this  temporary  evil."* 

"While  his  creatures  travail  together  in  pain,  he  knoweth  all 
their  pain,  and  is  bringing  them  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  birth, 
which  shall  be  accomplished  in  its  season.  He  seeth  the  earnest 
expectation  wherewith  the  whole  animated  creation  waiteth  for 
that  final  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God,  in  which  they  them- 
selves, also  shall  be  delivered,  (not  by  annihilation:  annihilation 
is  not  deliverance,)  from  the  present  bondage  of  corruption  into 
(a  measure  of,)  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,"t 

Mr.  Wesley  goes  on;  "nothing  can  be  more  express,  away  with 
vulgar  prejudices,  and  let  the  plain  word  of  God  take  place. 
They  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  into  glo- 
rious liberty:  even  a  measure,  according  as  they  are  capable,  of 
the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God. 

"  But  what  end  does  it  answer,  to  dwell  upon  this  subject  which 
we  so  imperfectly  understand?"  To  consider  so  much  as  we  do 
understand,^  so  much  as  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  to  us, 
may  answer  that  excellent  end,  to  illustrate  tliat  mercy  of  God, 
•which  is  over  all  his  works.  And  it  may  exceedingly  confirm  our 
belief,  that  much  more  he  is  loving  to  every  man.  For  how  well 

*  Sermons,  vol.  v.  page  12^.     t  Pas*^  i^r.         t  I'agc  130. 


856  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

may  we  urge  our  hordes  word,  »dre  not  ye  much  betterthanthp.y?l{ 
then  the  Lord  takes  such  care  of  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  of  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  shall  he  not  much  more  take  care  of  you,  crea- 
tures of  a  nobler  order? 

«  May  it  not  answer  another  end,  namely,  furnish  us  with  a  full 
answer  to  a  plausible  objection  against  the  justice  of  God,  in  suf- 
fering numberless  creatures,  that  never  had  sinned,  to  be  so  se- 
verely punished?  They  could  not  sin,  for  they  were  not  moral 
agents.  Yet  how  severely  do  they  suffer?  Yea,  many  of  them, 
beasts  of  burden  in  particular,  almost  the  whole  time  of  their 
abode  on  earth.  So  that  they  can  have  no  retribution  here  below 
But  the  objection  vanishes  away,  if  we  consider  that  something 
better  remains  after  death,  for  these  poor  creatures  also:  that  these 
likewise  shall  one  day  be  delivered  from  this  bondage  of  corrup- 
tion, and  shall  then  receive  an  ample  amends  for  all  their  present 
sufferings. 

"  One  more  excellent  end  may  undoubtedly  be  answered  by  the 
preceding  considerations.  They  may  encourage  us  to  imitate  him, 
whose  mercy  is  over  all  his  works.  They  may  soften  our  hearts 
towards  the  meaner  creatures,  knowing  that  the  Lord  careth  for 
them.  It  may  enlarge  our  hearts  towards  those  poor  creatures,  t» 
reflect  that  as  vile  as  they  appear  in  our  eyes,  not  one  of  them  is 
forgotten  in  the  sight  of  our  heavenly  Father." 

These  are  some  of  the  arguments  which  fully  convinced  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Wesley,  that  the  goodness  of  God  will  ultimately  de- 
liver the  unsinning  part  of  the  creation  from  the  ravages  of  sin,  and 
place  them  in  a  state  of  undisturbed  enjoyment,  as  was  originally 
intended. 

And  shall  we  conclude  that  his  opinion  is  a  dreadful  heresy, 
subversive  of  the  very  fundamental  principles  of  Christianity? 
Shall  we  start  aid  draw  back  from  it,  as  if  the  very  heavens  Mere 
indangeroffalling,oras  if  all  ourhopes  of  salvation  were  in  danger 
of  being  destroyed?  Are  we  afraid  God  should  be  too  kind  to  his 
suffering  creatures,  which  he  created  in  order  that  they  might  be 
happy,  and  which  have  never  sinned  against  him?  AVhat  harm 
would  it  be  to  any  man  or  angel,  if  God  should  kindly  take  care  of 
sparrows,  and  restore  them  to  that  state  of  happiness,  for  M'hich 
his  goodness  brought  them  into  being,  and  of  which  they  would 
still  have  retained  the  quiet  possession,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
wickedness  of  another  order  of  his  creatures? 

Are  we  afraid  of  consequences?  What  are  they?  One  conse- 
quence is,  that  if  God  has  such  a  perpetual  regard  for  his  mean- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  857 

est  creatures,  he  will  bring  to  just  punishment  the  wretch  that 
takes  pleasure  in  abusing  them.  Are  we  afraid  of  this  conse- 
quence? If  so,  we  want  the  privilege,  it  seems,  to  abuse  them  with 
impunity.  Another  is,  that  God  delights  to  see  those  creatures 
happy,  and  of  course,  they  were  not  made  solely  for  our  accommo- 
dation, without  any  regard  to  their  own:  They  were  not  created 
merely  to  serve  us  a  little  while,  frequently  groaning  and  bleed- 
ing under  our  tyranny,  and  then  to  be  cast  by  into  the  silent  shades 
of  oblivion:  hence  we  are  deprived  of  the  selhsh  pleasure  of  think- 
ing that  God  made  them  through  mere  partiality  to  us,  without 
any  regard  to  their  own  enjoyments,  which  would  be  the  case,  if 
he  kept  them  in  being  only  while  we  wanted  their  services, 
and  afterwards  struck  them  out  of  existence,  merely  because  we 
have  no  more  occasion  to  make  them  our  drudges.  Perhaps  we 
are  afraid  it  will  eclipse  our  glory,  if  brutes  are  permitted  to  live 
forever,  which,  to  be  sure,  ought  to  be  the  sole  prerogative  of  man! 
AVere  they  not  originally  made  to  live  forever.^  And  did  it  eclipse 
the  glory  of  Adam,  or  diminish  his  prerogative,  that  various  orr 
ders  of  living  creatures  were  permitted  to  share  with  him  in  the 
blessings  of  paradise.  Would  it  have  increased  his  dignity,  had 
he  wished  their  existence  might  come  to  an  end,  or  refused  to  be- 
lieve that  God  intended  they  should  enjoy  everlasting  happiness 
as  well  as  himself  and  his  posterity.^ 

Bat  we  are  afraid  if  men  generally  believed  that  beasts  will  be 
restored  to  their  original  state  of  happiness,  they  would  next  be- 
lieve that  devils  and  sinners  will  be  restored  from  hell;  and  hence 
they  would  banish  all  their  fears,  and  rest  contented  in  their  wick- 
edness. They  may  believe  this  or  any  thing  else,  and  it  is  impos- 
sible for  us  to  hinder  them,  if  they  are  resolved  to  disregard  all 
evidence,  and  l>elieve  whatever  is  most  suitable  to  their  taste;  but 
they  will  never  espouse  the  latter  opinion  as  a  regular  conse- 
quence of  the  former,  for  there  is  not  as  much  connexion  between 
them  as  there  is  between  the  two  poles. 

The  sin  of  devils  and  men,  we  say,  has  involved  the  brute  crea- 
tion in  a  state  of  misery:  but  God  will  ultimately  deliver  them 
from  it  and  place  them  in  their  original  state  of  happiness:  why? 
Because  they  were  not  involved  by  their  own  fault,  but  by  the 
fault  of  men  and  devils.  And  if  God  will  support  the  happiness 
of  his  innocent  creatures,  because  they  are  innocent,  you  conclude 
it  is  a  clear  consequence  that  he  will  also  restore  those  guiliy  re- 
bels who  are  punished  ou  account  of  their  abominations  against 
Zz 


358  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

the  innocent,  and  for  the  security  of  whom,  the  sentence  of  justice 
was  executed  upon  them! 

It  was  God's  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the  innocent  that  first  in- 
fluenced him  to  send  devils  and  wicked  men  to  hell:  how  then  can 
his  regard  to  the  innocent  cause  him  to  extend  mercy  to  devils  and 
wicked  spirits,  unless  you  suppose  they  have  become  innocent, 
since  they  went  to  hell? 

The  dreadful  inference  tve  are  so  much  afraid  of,  could  be 
drawn  with  more  plausibility  from  the  doctrine  of  divine  mercy  to 
sinners  in  this  world:  If  I  go  to  hell,  says  one,  God  will  deliver 
me  after  a  while,  and  take  me  to  heaven:  why?  Because  his  nature 
is  to  show  mercy; for  you  say  he  pardons  many  sinners  in  this  world, 
and  sanctifies  their  nature,  and  why  not  in  the  world  to  comer 
The  inference  would  have  more  appearance  of  reason,  when 
drawn  from  this  doctrine  than  the  other;  because  beasts  are  inno- 
cent, and  therefore  God's  regard  to  them  aftbrds  no  inference  in  fa- 
vour of  the  guilty;  but  if  guilty  men  are  restored  from  their  wretch- 
ed state,  and  taken  to  heaven,  sinners  may  with  some  appearance 
of  plausibility  presume,  that  a  similar  dispensation  will  obtain  in 
that  future  world  to  which  we  are  fast  approaching.  And  shall 
we  therefore  be  very  cautious  how  we  believe  or  teach  the  doe- 
trine  of  divine  mercy  to  sinners  in  this  world,  for  fear  men  will 
take  occasion  to  infer,  that  devils  and  damned  spirits  may  also 
obtain  forgiveness?  If  there  be  a  need  of  caution  in  the  other  case, 
there  certainly  is  more  in  this,  because  it  appears  to  afford  some 
presumption  of  the  kind,  which  the  other  does  not. 

The  fact  is,  that  men,  who  are  determined  to  love  sin  more  thaa 
reason  and  truth,  will  find  pretences  enough  to  silence  their  con- 
sciences, and  will  be  at  no  loss  to  find  sophistical  arguments  to  con- 
vince them  of  w  hat  they  are  resolved  to  believe  at  all  events.  In 
vain  may  we  attempt  to  guard  them  against  it  by  suppressing  the 
light  of  evidence,  from  the  groundless  fear  that  the  establishment 
of  one  truth,  would  lead  to  a  disbelief  of  another.  This  were  to 
suppose  that  truth  naturally  contradicts  itself,  that  one  error  is 
necessary  to  guard  us  against  falling  into  another;  that  we  ought 
to  be  afraid  of  the  clearest  evidence,  and  finally,  that  God  would 
have  the  world  directed  by  stratagem,  instead  of  the  calm  voice  of 
reason  and  revelation. 

Without  consuming  too  much  time  on  this  article,  which  must 
be  allowed  to  be  of  Jess  importance  than  many  others,  I  will  only 
add  one  argument  which  has  had  the  chief  influence  in  producing 
a  conviction  in  my  mind,  that  God  will  restore  the  animal  crea- 
tion to  a  state  of  perpetual  happiness.    It  is  this: 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  3,i» 

The  animals  were  originally  made  to  enjoy  a  happy  existence; 
had  it  not  been  for  the  sin  of  others,  misery  and  death  would  never 
have  been  introduced  among  them:  of  course  divine  goodness  pre- 
pared for  them  a  state  of  felicity,  which  was  interrupted  by  the 
works  of  the  devil:  Jesus  Christ  came  to  destroy  the  works  of  the 
devil,  and  will  reign  till  all  enemies  are  i)ut  under  his  feet:  but  if 
innocent  animals  are  totally  deprived  of  that  happy  existence 
which  God  intended  for  them  to  enjoy  forever,  the  devil  has  suc- 
ceeded in  destroying  the  works  of  God,  the  innocent  not  excepted. 
If  those  innocent  creatures  are  never  restored,  it  must  be  because 
God  cannot  restore  them,  or  because  he  will  not;  if  he  cannot  do  it, 
it  would  seem  that  the  devil  has  overcome  his  power;  and  if  he 
.will  not,  the  old  serpent  has  caused  him  to  abandon  the  original 
purpose  of  his  goodness  towards  millions  of  his  unoffending  crea- 
tures. 

This  consequence  cannot  be  set  aside,  without  affirming  that 
the  beasts  were  originally  made  for  destruction.  Nor  can  it  be 
retorted,  by  recurring  to  the  state  of  men  and  angels:  for  it  was 
not  the  original  design  of  God  that  they  should  enjoy  everlasting 
happiness,  but  upon  condition  of  their  obedience;  whereas  no  con- 
dition of  obedience  was  enjoined  on  the  inferior  'animals,  and 
therefore,  unless  we  suppose  they  were  originally  made  to  be  de- 
stroyed or  annihilated,  they  will  be  restored;  otherwise  you  say 
the  devil  has  caused  their  Creator  to  alter  his  mind  concerning 
them. 

As  to  men  and  angels,  it  was  the  design  of  God  that  they  should 
stand  responsible  for  their  moral  conduct,  and  be  dealt  with  ac- 
cording to  their  works,  by  the  law  of  his  holy  and  unchangeable 
attributes:  thii 
be  to  eternity. 


SECTION  xn. 

Of  the  Divine  Sovereignty. 

It  may  be  necessary,  before  we  close  this  part  of  the  subjeet,  to 
notice  a  favourite  argument  of  our  opponeDls,  founded  npon  the 
Divine  Sovereignty. 


360  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

"God,  say  they,  has  an  undoubted  right  to  do  what  he  will  with 
his  own:  he  is  not  bound  to  make  any  creature  liappy,  much  less  to 
restore  those  who  have  fallen  from  a  state  of  rectitude:  therefore 
he  has  the  just  prerogative  to  receive  one  and  jtass  by  another^ 
according  to  his  own  good  pleasure.  Shall  the  thing  formed,  say 
to  him  (hat  formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus?"  To  this 
we  would  answer: 

1.  The  English  word,  sovereign,  signifies,  supreme  in  power, 
having  no  superior.  Sovereignty,  supremacy,  highest  place,  highest 
degree  of  excellence.* 

By  the  divine  sovereignty  then,  we  understand,  that  God  is  su- 
preme in  power,  authority  and  excellence:  consequently  when  his 
power  is  exercised  to  maintain  his  authority,  according  to  the 
moral  excellence  of  his  nature,  his  sovereignty  is  secured.  The 
moment  we  charge  him  with  using  his  power  in  opposition  to  his 
excellence,  or  moral  attributes,  we  charge  him  with  renouncing 
the  sovereign  glory  of  his  nature;  and  when  we  plead  that  he  has 
a  right  to  do  so,  we  suppose  he  has  a  right  to  cease  being  God, 
and  to  imitate  the  king  of  the  bottomless  pit,  who  delights  in  the 
exercise  of  a  despotic  sovereignty,  that  has  no  connexion  with 
moral  goodness. 

2.  Justice,  truth  and  benevolence,  are  essential  attributes  of  Al- 
mighty God,  or  they  are  not;  to  say  they  are  not,  is  to  leap  into 
atheism,  or  into  the  belief  of  a  God  totally  destitute  of  every  prin- 
ciple of  morality,  which  is  still  worse  than  atheism:  but  if  those 
attributes  are  essential  to  the  divine  nature,  then  to  say  God  has  a 
right  to  depart  from  them,  is  to  siiy  he  has  a  right  to  abandon  that 
which  is  essential  to  his  nature,  to  change  himself  into  another 
deity,  of  an  opposite  nature,  and  to  govern  his  actions  by  the  evil 
principles  w  hich  predominate  in  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Will  he 
be  pleased  with  any  creature  for  imputing  this  to  him,  and  for 
labouring  to  vindicate  his  right  to  such  a  gloomy  and  terrifying 
supremacy.^ 

3  The  word  tyrannous  or  tyrannical,  according  to  Walker,  signi- 
fies despotic,  arbitrary,  severe.  Tyrant,  an  absolute  monarch  gov- 
srning  imperiously;  a  cruel,  despotic  and  severe  master.  According 
to  the  same  author,  the  word  arbitrary  means  despotic,  absolutej 
depending  on  no  rule;  capricious.  Arbitrarily,  with  no  other  rule 
than  the  will;  despotically;  absolutely. 

Hence  it  appears  that  a  tyrant  is  one  "who  governs  his  actions 
by  no  other  rule  than  his  own  will,  and  who  fancies  he  has  a  right 

*  See  Walker's  Dictionary. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  361 

to  do  so  arising  out  of  his  sovereign  prerogative,  as  absolute  mon- 
arch:" his  vassals,  on  the  contrary,  must  have  no  will,  or  no  other 
rule  of  action,  than  a  regular  intention  to  submit  to  his  will  in  all 
things  he  is  pleased  to  enjoin,  for  no  other  reason  but  because  it  is 
his  will. 

Thus  a  tyrant  departs  from  all  moral  principles  himself,  and 
demands  of  his  subjects  also  to  depart  from  them,  and  to  make 
his  will  the  sole  rule  of  their  actions.  They  may  indeed  do  moral 
actions  in  those  cases  where  his  will  happens  not  to  interfere;  but 
even  then,  they  must  not  do  them  from  a  regard  to  morality,  but 
from  a  regard  to  his  will;  and  whenever  he  shall  will  their  depar- 
ture from  any  righteous  action,  they  must  give  it  up,  and  consider 
his  sovereign  pleasure  alone  as  the  foundation  of  all  right  and  of 
all  obligation. 

AVere  we  to  plead  for  such  a  right  as  this  in  behalf  of  such  per- 
sons as  Nero,  Caligula  or  Bishop  Bonner,  they  would  doubtless  be 
pleased  with  us,  and  consider  us  as  very  acceptable  advocates  for 
their  sovereign  prerogative.  I  am  apt  to  imagine  that  the  old 
prince  of  darkness  has  also  been  in  the  habit  of  claiming  this  so- 
vereign right  for  some  thousands  of  years,  and  that  he  is  ambi- 
tious to  govern  without  being  limited  l)y  any  other  rule  than  that 
of  his  own  will.  But  what  good  man  will  presume,  upon  second 
thoughts,  that  the  benevolent  Author  of  this  great  universe  will  be 
pleased  to  hear  us  advocate  his  supposed  right  to  transform  him- 
self into  the  nature  and  character  of  an  arbitrary  tyrant.^  AVho  can, 
without  horror,  consider  the  depth  of  blasphemy  there  is  in  the 
supposition,  that  God  has  a  right  to  transform  himself  into  a  devil? 
And  what  creature  of  God  will  do  such  violence  to  the  immediate 
dictates  of  his  ijitellectual  faculties,  as  to  believe  it  possible  for 
any  being  to  have  a  right  to  do  wrong?  In  other  words,  that  a  be- 
ing does  right  in  doing  wrong;  or  that  right  is  wrong  and  wrong  is 
right;  or  in  other  words,  "that  there  is  no  distinction  between  right 
and  wrong,  and  that  sovereign  will  may  do  any  thing,  every  thing, 
©r  nothing. 

4.  To  suppose  God  may  do  any  thing,  because  he  possesses 
Almighty  power,  is  to  suppose  right  has  its  origin  in  power:  that 
is,  that  the  reason  why  a  being  has  a  right  to  do  any  thing,  is  that 
he  has  power  to  do  it.  Take  away  his  power,  and  you  take  away 
his  right;  enlarge  his  power  and  his  right  is  enlaiged  in  exact  pro- 
portion. 

This  doctrine  was  advocated  by  Mr.  Hobbes;  and  it  is  very  pleas- 
ing to  every  tyrant  ia  the  world;  for  if  this  be  true,  it  of  course 


36a  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

follows,  that  the  tyrant  never  did  any  wrong  in  his  life,  because  he 
never  did  any  tiling  beyond  his  power,  and  therefore  it  could  not 
be  beyond  his  right,  seeing  right  grows  out  of  power,  and  out  of 
nothing  else. 

Upon  this  atheistic  hypothesis  all  men  have  a  right  to  do  any 
thing  and  every  thing  in  their  power,  because  the  power  is  the  on- 
ly thing  that  supports  right,  seeing  right  naturally  grows  out  of  it. 
I  have  a  right  to  take  away  any  man's  liberty  or  life,  provided  on- 
ly that  I  have  power  to  do  it;  and  any  other  man  has  a  right  to 
take  my  liberty  or  life,  whenever  he  may  happen  to  have  it  in  his 
power.  Thus  all  moral  principles  are  destroyed,  all  obligation 
ceases,  and  despotic  tyranny  is  the  only  God  tliat  is  to  be  worship- 
ped in  either  earth  or  heaven. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  principle  of  right  is  as  uncreated,  eter- 
nal, and  unchangeable  as  God  himself,  because  it  is  an  essential 
principle  of  his  immutable  nature.  To  say  God  has  a  right  to  act 
in  opposition  to  his  eternal  Attribute  of  justice,  appears  to  be 
equal  in  blasphemy  with  the  supposition,  "that  God  has  a  right 
to  destroy  himself. 

5.  It  is  granted,  that  "God  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel 
of  his  own  will;"  because  his  perpetual  will  is  to  do  every  thing 
according  to  his  immutable  justice,  truth  and  benevolence.  But 
because  our  Saviour  represents  the  Lord  of  the  hired  servants  as 
saying,  "may  I  not  do  what  I  will  with  my  own,"  some  appear  to 
imagine  he  means  that  God  has  a  right  to  do  any  thing  with  his 
creatures,  because  they  are  his  own.  Whereas  it  is  evident  from 
the  parable,  that  the  master  had  no  reference  to  the  labourers,  for 
they  were  not  his  own,  seeing  they  had  voluntarily  entered  into  his 
service  for  a  stipulated  price.  By  the  term,  my  own,  was  meant 
his  money,  which  he  had  a  right  to  bestow  as  a  favour,  or  to  with- 
hold it  at  his  option. 

It  is  true,  all  creatures  belong  to  God;  but  has  he  a  right  to  pu- 
nish the  holy  angels  Avith  everlasting  damnation  because  they  are 
his  own.^  If  so,  it  would  appear,  that  if  the  devil  had  power  to 
create  sensible  or  conscious  creatures,  and  were  to  do  so  in  order 
to  torment  them  in  the  flames  of  hell  forever,  he  would  have  a 
right  to  do  it  because  they  would  be  his  own.  The  only  reason 
M'hy  he  has  not  the  right  to  do  tins,  is  that  he  has  not  the  power: 
thus  we  are  brought  back  to  Mr.  Hobbes's  atheistic  theory  again, 
that  right  grows  out  of  power. 

God  justly  claims  all  men  and  angels  as  his  own:  that  is,  they 
are  his  own  servants,  or  the  subjects  of  his  government,  and  he  has 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  363 

a  right  to  demand  obedience  from  them  in  proportion  to  the  know- 
ledge and  power  he  has  given  them,  and  according  to  the  princi- 
ples of  his  moral  law.  But  to  say  he  has  a  right  to  deceive  them 
by  lying,  to  accuse  and  condemn  them  falsely,  or  to  punish  them 
for  nothing,  but  tlie  gratification  of  his  sovereign  pleasure,  because 
they  are  his  own,  is  to  say  God  is  a  tyrant,  and  that  he  has  a  right 
to  be  so. 

AH  creatures  hold  their  existence  and  happiness  by  a  grant  of 
benevoleneej  but  their  right  of  exemption  from  penal  torments,  they 
claim  from  eternal  justice,  so  long  as  they  continue  innocent:  here 
they  have  a  proper  right  of  demand,  inseparable  from  their  being, 
as  innocent  creatures;  and  their  Creator  is  bound  injustice  not  to 
violate  their  right. 

If  we  deny  this,  we  say  the  creatures  of  God,  when  they  rebell- 
ed against  his  government,  forfeited  no  right  thereby,  seeing  they 
had  no  right  to  forfeit;  of  course  they  were  no  more  exposed  to 
punishment,  in  justice,  then  they  were  before;  because  tlie  sove- 
reign pleasure  is  supposed  the  only  ground  of  their  happiness  or 
misery,  and  if  the  supreme  will  should  so  determine,  it  might  be 
made  just  for  them  to  be  rewarded  for  their  wickedness,  and  jpwn- 
ished  for  keeping  the  commandments.  The  Almighty  Sovereign 
might,  if  it  should  happen  to  be  his  good  pleasure,  make  guilt  con- 
sist in  loving  justice,  mercy  and  truth,  and  make  innocence  con- 
sist in  falsehood,  and  in  hating  every  thing  that  is  just  and  good. 
He  might  restore  all  devils  from  the  lake  of  hell,  and  reward  them 
with  crowns  of  glory  for  their  profound  abhorrence  of  all  morali- 
ty; he  might  at  the  same  time  send  all  his  holy  angels  into  hell, 
together  with  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,  to  suffer  the 
vengeance  of  eternal  fire,  as  the  due  wages  of  their  want  of  malice; 
and  all  this  would  be  as  perfectly  just  and  righteous  as  any  thing 
that  has  been  done  since  the  creation,  provided  the  sovereign  will 
should  fix  it  so.  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  only  standard  of  justice 
in  the  universe. 

6.  We  grant  God  is  not  bound  to  pardon  and  save  any  sinner,  by 
any  right  in  the  sinner,  to  demand  salvation  at  his  hand:  and 
lience  it  is  concluded  by  our  opponents,  that  their  doctrine  is  con- 
ceded, namely,  that  he  may  save  one,  and  pass  by  another,  for  no 
other  reason  but  his  own  good  pleasure;  and  no  creature  can  have 
a  just  ground  of  complaint.  His  gratuitous  act  of  eleelingone,  and 
neglecting  another,  they  call  his  sovereign  grace;  but  (he  proper 
name  of  it  is  sovereign  partialitij. 


864  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Sovereign  grace  is  the  grace,  or  favour,  exercisei]  by  a  sovereign: 
it  has  been  shown  that  God's  sovereignty  consists  in  his  supreme 
right  to  govern  his  creatures,  not  as  a  tyrant,  but  according  to  his 
holy  and  unchangeable  attributes.  It  remains  for  us  to  inquire 
whether  partiality  is  to  be  considered  as  one  of  the  attributes  of 
God,  or  whether  it  necessarily  arises  out  of  them. 

By  partiality  I  here  mean  "a  disposition  to  limit  favours  to  cer- 
tain individuals,  and  to  withhold  them  from  others  under  similar 
circumstances,  for  no  reason  but  arbitrary  w  ill  or  pleasure.  Does 
isuch  a  disposition  belong  to  God.^  I  hope  the  following  reflections 
will  serve  to  decide  I'his  question  in  the  negative: 

1.  Supposing  God  is  not  bound  to  be  impartial  in  bestowing  his 
favours,  does  it  follow  from  this  that  he  is  disposed  to  be  partial,  or 
that  he  ever  will  be  so.'*  Is  not  benevolence  as  dear  to  him  as  jus- 
tice, and  is  he  any  more  disposed,  in  any  ease,  to  depart  from  the 
former  than  the  latter.'* 

3.  Suppose  two  sinners  stand  before  God,  equally  needy,  and 
whose  salvation  would  equally  accord  with  justice:  if  he  save  one, 
and  pass  by  the  other,  only  because  he  will  do  so,  in  this  act  of 
passing  by,  he  shows  such  a  deficiency  in  the  love  of  goodness, 
that  he  will  not  be  kind  to  this  person,  when  there  is  no  moral  ob- 
struction. It  is  not  for  the  sake  of  benevolence  surely,  that  he  re- 
fuses in  this  case  to  be  benevolent;  it  is  not  for  the  sake  of  justice, 
because  the  salvation  of  one  is  supposed  to  accord  with  justice  as 
well  as  that  of  the  other;  It  is  not  for  the  sake  of  truth,  unless 
some  one  will  undertake  to  prove  that  God  has  declared  he  will  be 
partial,  and  pass  by  some  sinners  whose  salvation  would  perfectly 
accord  both  with  justice  and  benevolence;  therefore  in  such  an  act 
of  partiality  he  would  have  no  regard  to  any  moral  principle, 
and  consequently  the  action  would  result  from  some  private  and 
selfish  one,  that  is  regardless  of  all  morality. 

3.  Though  it  be  granted  that  God  is  not  bound  to  be  impartial, 
from  any  right  of  demand  in  sinners,  yet  he  has  graciously  bound 
himself  by  pledging  his  own  character  that  he  will  always  act  ac- 
coiding  to  the  harmony  of  all  his  attributes.  He  has  fairly  and 
openly  stated  the  conditions  on  which  pardon  is  to  be  granted, 
and  has  declared  that  "u  hosoever  will,  may  take  of  the  waters  of 
life  freely:"  if,  therefore,  he  has  made  any  secret  reserves  and  ab- 
solute resolutions  or  decrees,  that  x-Vdam's  race  shall  not  be  equally 
welcome;  if  he  has  a  revealed  will,  proclaiming  most  unequivocally 
that  '^  he  delighteth  not  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but  would 
have  all  men  come  to  repentance,"  and  at  the  same  time  his  secret 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  3C5 

will  and  pleasure  is  that  a  majority  shall  be  unconditionally  ev 
eludedfrom  the  possibility  of  salvation,  what  an  hypocritical  char- 
acter does  he  display  before  his  holy  angelsl  And  before  men  too; 
for  it  seems  men  have  found  out  his  secret  will)  and  published  it 
abroad,  notwithstanding  his  design  to  keep  it  secret.  How  they 
obtained  access  to  the  secret  cabinet,  I  have  not  been  informed; 
but  be  that  as  it  may,  they  have  made  the  thing  public,  and  have 
let  the  world  into  the  mystery  of  God's  "holy  simulation." 

4.  The  most  selfish  tyrant  in  the  world  is  capable  of  this  kind  of 
benevolence.  He  can  bestow  favours  sometimes,  when  it  suits  his 
humour,  or  when  it  may  be  thought  in  any  manner  to  subserve  his 
selfish  purposes;  but  if  he  frequently  neglects  others  in  similar 
circumstances,  for  no  other  reason  but  because  he  will,  it  is  clear 
his  favours  are  not  bestowed  from  principle,  or  from  a  regard  to 
general  happiness,  but  merely  from  a  regard  to  his  sovereign  plea«- 
sure:  that  is,  from  a  desire  to  gratify  the  pride  and  selfishness  of 
his  own  heart.  He  bestows  favours  on  some,  and  passes  by  others, 
merely  and  solely  because  it  is  his  will  to  do  so:  then  his  will  is 
not  regulated  by  any  regard  to  the  principle  of  benevolence,  for 
that  principle  would  apply  to  all  those  eases  alike:  not  from  a  re- 
gard to  justice,  for  the  persons  whom  he  passed  by,  might  have 
been  relieved  as  consistently  withjustice  as  the  others:  his  actions 
flow  from  a  selfish  principle,  and  he  is  as  destitute  of  moral  good- 
ness in  bestowing  his  favours  as  in  withholding  them;  because  both 
actions  flow  from  the  same  principle,  and  that  is  a  proud  desire  t» 
gratify  and  display  his  own  sovereign  pleasure. 


SECTION  XIIL 

The  same  subject. 

The  present  objection  supposes  God  to  be  ambitious  to  esta- 
blish himself  at  the  head  of  a  party.  Moral  principles  are  uni- 
versal in  their  application:  justice  is  not  limited  to  a  part  of  man- 
kind; and  benevolence  does  not  consist  in  the  blind  attachments  of 
party  spirit,  but  in  such  a  regard  to  general  happiness  as  influen- 
ces a  person  to  extend  happiness  as  far  as  he  is  able  to  extend  it 
consistently  with  justice.  While  a  person  is  governed  by  thosp 
3  A 


366  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

principles,  his  actions  and  motives  have  relation  to  the  community 
in  general,  and  admit  of  no  arbitrary  selection  of  particular 
parlies. 

But  in  our  degenerate  world  we  see  party  spirit  prevail  both  in 
church  and  state,  and  triumph  over  every  principle  of  righteous- 
ness. Thousands  have  a  humorous  loudness  for  one  party,  and  a 
proportional  disgust  and  antipathy  against  another,  which  make 
them  blind  to  the  clearest  evidence. 

They  are  willing  truth  should  prevail,  so  far  as  it  may  accord 
with  the  support  of  their  own  party;  but  their  opponents  must  be 
hindered  from  speakiiig  the  truth,  and  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with 
heretics.  They  are  very  tenacious  of  the  rights  of  justice,  on  their 
own  side;  but  they  are  unwilling  others  should  have  equal  rights, 
and  wish  justicetobea  limitedprinciple,  confined  to  particular  par- 
ties. They  are  very  benevolent  also,  provided  it  be  true  that  bene- 
volence consists  in  bestowing  favours  on  their  side  of  the  house, 
for  the  gratification  of  their  partiality,  or  their-  party  spirit^ 
which  is  the  same  thing;  but  as  to  a  general  love,  that  delights  to 
bless  all  needy  objects  alike,  without  respect  of  persons,  this  is  a 
stranger  to  their  bosom. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  party  spirit  or  partiality  is  hostile  to 
every  righteous  principle.  All  such  principles  are  universal  in 
their  nature,  and  a  proper  regard  to  justice,  truth  and  benevolence, 
arises  out  of  a  general  love  tli at  delights  to  make  all  individuals 
happy,  who  can  be  made  so  without  violating  the  rights  of  others. 
"Whereas  partiality  is  a  limited,  selfish  love,  which  delights  to 
make  justice,  truth  and  benevolence,  subservient  to  the  blind  at- 
tachments and  arbitrary  decisions  of  a  despotic  v\ill. 

This  spirit  is  truly  ihe  mother  of  abominations.  It  causes  us  to 
beblind  to  the  faults  and  absurdities  of  our  own  parly:  it  causes  us 
to  do  violence  to  our  reason  and  conscience,  to  suppress  and  hate 
all  truth  and  all  evidence,  unless  it  be  favourable  to  our  own  side: 
it  causes  us  unmercifully  to  judg-e  the  other  side,  and  to  impute 
crimes  tothem  according  to  our  sovereign  pleasure:  it  causes  us  to 
monopiilize  the  rights  of  justice  to  ourselves:  it  causes  us  to  limit 
oar  favours  according  to  the  selfish  dictate  of  our  partiality,  and 
to  be  envious  at  the  prosperity  of  our  opponents.  In  short,  it  pro- 
duces a  blind,  unreasonable,  and  idolatrous  fondness  for  our  fa- 
vourites, and  a  corresponding  animosity  against  the  objects  whom 
our  arbitrary  will  singles  out  for  reprobation.  As  the  blind  attach- 
ment rises  for  one  side,  a  secret  malice  rises  lagainst  the  other  in 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  367 

exact  proportion;  and  thus  every  moral  virtue  is  made  to  yield  to 
the  selfish  fury  of   party  malevolence. 

This  gave  rise  to  the  furious  bigotry  of  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees:  they  laboured  to  confine  all  right  and  all  ihe  blessings  of 
salvation  to  the  Jewish  party;  and  to  detest  the  Gentiles,  to  perse- 
cute them,  and  fondly  to  consider  them  as  outcasts  from  God,  fit 
only  to  be  taken  and  destroyed. 

It  gave  rise  to  the  bloody  scenes  of  popery.  They  confined  sal- 
vation to  themselves;  they  fancied  that  God's  partiality  confined 
all  his  eternal  favours  to  their  holy  church,  and  that  he  had  a 
corresponding  abhorrence  for  all  heretics.  That  is,  they  fancied  he 
was  altogether  such  an  one  as  themselves.  They  believed  they 
had  rights,  but  that  others  had  not  equal  rights.  They  believed 
men  ought  to  be  benevoleat  and  kind,  but  not  to  heretics.  It  was 
right  to  be  sincere,  to  tell  the  truth,  and  keep  our  word;  but  no 
faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics.  Thus  the  god  of  party  was  wor- 
shipped, till  all  regard  to  moral  principles  was  given  up,  and  here- 
tics were  destroyed  by  the  most  excruciating  tortures,  and  w  ith  a 
fond  belief  that  God's  unchangeable  hatred  and  malice  against 
them  was  equal  to  their  own;  and  of  course  that  they  would  all 
burn  in  the  flames  of  hell  forever. 

Wherever  malice  and  persecution  have  prevailed  in  any  sect  or 
country,  it  has  risen  froai  devotion  to  the  same  God.  Jt  matters 
not  whether  it  appear  under  the  garb  of  piety,  zeal  for  God,  liber- 
ty, patriotism,  a  design  to  enlighten  the  world,  to  suppress  priest- 
craft and  superstition,  or  any  other  hypocritical  pretension. — 
It  is  the  same  thing  under  all  those  names,  and  manifests  itself 
hy  its  fruits.  It  is  such  a  blind  and  vehement  fondness  for  our 
party,  and  such  habitual  and  settled  malevolence  against  others, 
as  leads  us  to  sacrifice  truth,  justice  and  benevolence,  to  build  up 
one  party  and  pull  down  the  other.  This,  as  all  experience  shows, 
is  the  nature  and  tendency  of  partiality. 

Is  it  possible  that  good  men  can  believe,  upon  second  thoughts, 
that  there  is  any  such  jwinciple  in  the  Lord  our  Maker.''  Surely 
such  unbecoming  thoughts  of  God  must  be  rejected  by  every  re- 
flecting mind.  But  I  think  it  is  not  hard  to  discover  that  the  elect- 
ing love,  sovereign  pleasure,  and  secret  will,  so  often  spoken  of, 
are  nothing  more  than  other  names  substituted  for  arbitrary  par- 
'tiality,  and  the  disposition  is  the  same  under  every  appellation. 

God's  will,  in  relation  to  his  creatures,  is  always  regulated  by 
his  moral  attributes,  or  it  is  not;  if  it  is,  he  is  always  disposed  to 
make  every  creature  happy,  so  far  as  it  will  accord  with  justice; 


S68  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

if  it  is  not,  he  sometimes  departs  from  the  perfections  of  his  na- 
ture, and  is  influenced  by  some  secret  principle  totally  distinct 
ijrom  them. 

I  think  we  may  safely  conclude  upon  the  whole,  that  partiality, 
subversive  of  all  righteousness,  arises  out  of  a  selfish  heart,  and 
that  so  far  as  a  ruler  is  disposed  to  be  tyrannical,  so  far  he  de- 
sires and  needs  a  secret  witl,  in  opposition  to  the  will  which  he  is 
pleased  to  make  known,  and  by  which  he  professes  to  regulate  hii 
administration. 

I  know  it  may  be  urged,  that  God  has  in  fact  exercised  partiali- 
ty in  giving  the  dilJerent  capacities  and  means  of  happiness  which 
he  has  given  to  different  orders  of  his  creatures. 

But  this  supposes  partiality  can  be  exercised  towards  creatures 
before  they  exist,  and  if  so,  it  can  be  exercised  toward  a  nonentity. 
Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  for  the  thing  formed  to  say  to 
him  that  formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus.^  Because  this 
supposes  we  had  rights  or  claims  upon  the  divine  attributes  before 
we  vvere  created.  If  partiality  can  be  exercised  towards  a  wore- 
entity,  the  objection  would  still  hold,  though  God  had  made  all 
creatures  of  the  same  order:  for  it  might  be  said,  how  many  mil- 
lions of  creatures  might  be  created  that  are  still  in  a  state  of  non- 
existence.^ Hurely  God  is  partial,  or  he  would  not  leave  those  crea- 
tures which  might  be  made,  in  a  state  of  nonentity,  while  these 
are  in  a  state  of  happy  existence! 

And  it' God's  having  given  beasts  a  small  capacity  of  happiness, 
is  a  proof  of  his  partiality,  his  conduct  towards  stones  and  trees  is 
a  still  greater  proof  of  it,  because  he  has  given  them  no  capacity  of 
happiness. 

The  partiality  opposed  in  these  pages,  consists  in  an  arbitrary 
will  to  bestow  favours  on  some,  and  neglect  others,  who  equally 
ijeed  such  favours,  and  who  stand  in  the  same  moral  relation  to 
him  who  bestows  them.  But  as  to  the  kind  or  degree  of  capacity 
creatures  were  to  have,  it  has  no  connexion  with  the  subject:  for 
before  our  existence  we  were  in  need  ©f  nothing,  and  had  no  rela- 
tion to  moral  principles. 

The  Lord  gives  the  light  and  assistance  of  his  hoIy>  spirit  to  a 
wen,  and  withholds  this  blessing  from  Sibeast:  there  is  no  partiali- 
ty in  this,  because  the  beast  does  not  need  spiritual  grace,  as  the 
man  does,  nor  does  it  stand  in  the  same  moral  relation  to  God. — 
But  the  case  of  two  or  more  sinners,  who  equally  need  pardon  and 
salvation,  and  whose  salvation  would  equally  accord  with  the 
§;eneral  welfare,  is  so  eatirely  ditterent  from  the  eases  alleged 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  369 

ia  the  objection,  that  it  requires  no  uncommon  discernment  to 
perceive  that  this  futile  argument  has  no  just  bearing  upon  the 
doctrine  defended  in  the  present  section. 

But  because  some  men  have  greater  advantages  than  others 
during  their  existence  on  aarth,  it  is  presumed  by  some,  that  this 
results  solely  from  God's  sovereign  pleasure^  and  if  distinguish- 
ing grace  makes  such  a  difference  in  this  life,  why  not  in  the  life 
to  come.^     Answer: 

If  our  opponents  will  prove  that  God  has  no  moral  reason  for 
the  various  dispensations  of  his  grace  and  providence,  but  merely 
his  arbitrary  will; — if  they  clearly  evince  that  he  has  no  regard  to 
the  general  welfare,  and  the  greatest  good  of  his  creatures  upon 
the  whole,  in  the  variety  manifested  in  the  course  of  his  provi- 
dence in  the  present  world; — we  will  then  grant  that  a  principle 
of  arbitrary  sovereignty  governs  his  actions,  and  in  all  probabili- 
ty the  same  partiality  may  extend  to  a  future  state.  But  if  they 
cannot  prove  this,  if  the  contrary  be  true,  that  God  has  benevo- 
lent intentions,  to  which  this  order  in  his  works  in  the  present 
world  is  perpetually  subservient,  no  particular  fact  under  his  go- 
vernment can  be  produced  as  a  proof  of  his  partiality.  And  they 
are  bound  to  prove  this  point,  before  their  conclusion  can  be  ad- 
mitted, as  much  as  infidels  are  bound  to  prove  the  same  thing,  be- 
fore their  conclusions  can  be  admitted,  concerning  the  caprice,  or 
folly,  or  injustice  that  appears,  as  they  imagine,  in  the  Almighty's 
method  of  governing  this  world. 

If  they  say  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  prove  that  God  has  such  be- 
nevolent intentions  iu  the  different  gifts  and  advantages  conferred 
upon  men  in  the  present  life,  and  to  reconcile  the  seeming  partial- 
ities of  his  administration  Avith  the  doctrine  here  advanced;  our 
answer  is  short. 

The  moral  attributes  of  God  are  proved  by  the  testimony  of  re- 
velation, and  by  every  other  source  of  evidence,  the  great  Crea- 
tor, possessed  of  these  perfections,  is  unchangeable,  the  same 
yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever;  of  course  he  never  departs  from 
them  for  a  moment;  but  partiality  is  opposite  in  its  nature  and  ten- 
dency to  the  divine  perfections,  as  has  just  been  proved,  I  hope  to 
the  satisfaction  of  every  candid  reader;  therefore  no  such  partiali- 
ty is  ever  exercised  by  our  Maker  in  any  case,  however  some  cases 
may  have  the  appearance  of  it  to  our  limited  conceptions. 

As  to  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  disorders  of  the  present 
world  with  the  divine  nature,  we  must  cither  resulve  it  into  our 
own  ignorance,  or  we  must  charge  God  foolishly:  and  it  ill  becomes- 


370  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

a  christian  to  draw  his  conclusions  against  God,  from  certain  tem- 
porary appearances  which  he  does  not  understand,  and  is  incapa- 
ble ofcompreliendjng,  in  their  relation  to  the  whole.  This  is  truly 
the  deistica!  method  of  reasoning;  and  i(  is  a  metliod  which  has 
been  very  fruitful  of  unreasonable  and  atheistical  conclusions. 

A  father  of  a  family  or  ruler  of  a  state  may  exhibit  abundant 
evidence  to  his  children  or  subjects,  of  the  goodness  and  impartial- 
ity of  his  character,  and  yet  some  particular  cases  may  occur,  con- 
cerning which  they  may  be  incapable  of  entering  into  the  views  of 
the  benevolent  ruler,  and  may  consider  them  as  deviations  from 
wisdom  and  goodness,  merely  because  they  are  ignorant  of  their 
tendency,  and  of  their  relation  to  the  general  welfare.  A  foolish 
child  will  hastily  conclude  that  such  cases  are  proofs  of  his  pa- 
rent's unkindness  or  cruelty:but  he  m  ho  accustoms  I'is  mind  to  can- 
did reflection,  will  conclude  they  are  proofs  of  his  own  ignorance, 
and  ought  not,  in  any  degree,  to  weaken  his  confidence  in  the  pa- 
rent or  governor,  while  so  much  evidence  exists  of  the  general 
goodness  of  his  character. 

We  have  intuitive  conviction  that  the  First  Cause,  or  Supreme 
Being  must  necessarily  be  so  completely  above  the  blind  and  sel- 
fish principles  of  action  which  govern  ignorant  sinners,  that  "he 
cannot  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man."  The 
same  fundamental  truth  is  established  by  the  unequivocal  evidence 
of  revelation.  We  also  perceive  the  signs  of  Avisdom  and  benevo- 
lence in  the  visible  creation,  so  far  as  we  are  able  tf»  take  a  gene- 
ral view  of  it,aMdcould  that  view  be  comprehensive  and  oonjplete, 
how  would  we  be  transported  with  the  prospect!  But  a  prejudiced 
and  narn!=,v  mind  neglects  that  patient  reflection  which  would  ena- 
ble him  (o  draw  his  conclusions  from  an  enlarged  and  general 
view  of  things,  and,  conlining  himself  to  some  particular  parts, 
without  attending  to  the  clear  signs  of  goodness  in  the  whole,  con- 
cludes very  absurdly  that  God  is  partial  or  unjust.  This  conclu- 
sion depends  upon  the  truth  of  the  principle,  ''that  the  particular 
case  under  consideration  has  no  tendency  to  subserve  the  purpo- 
ses of  justice  or  mercy."  And  can  any  one  produce  the  least  evi- 
dence of  this?  if  not,  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  the  conclusion; 
and  the  belief  of  it  can  only  result  from  the  dictates  of  a  haughty 
mind,  which  pretends  to  nnderstand  the  government  of  this  uni- 
verse as  well  as  God  Almighty  understands  it. 

In  this  sophistical  manner  atheists  have  reasoned  against  the 
creation,  and  deists  against  the  bible.  God  favours  some  men  or 
some   nations  more  than  others,  with  his  natural  or  supernatural 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  371 

blessings  In  this  life;  therefore  many  conclude  that  this  variety  does 
not  flow  from  a  benevolent  intention  to  produce  the  greatest  gen- 
eral good  in  future,  but  from  an  essential  principle  of  partiality  in 
God. 

And  many  christians,  it  seems,  inadvertently  give  full  sanction 
to  these  unjust  reproaches  against  heaven,  and  then  hope  to  mend 
tlie  matter  by  pleading  that  God  has  a  right  to  deviate  from  his 
moral  attributes,  and  to  regulate  all  things  by  his  sovereign  plea- 
sure! Infidels  and  christians  agree  in  the  premises,  and  in  the 
first  conclusion,  namely,  that  God  is  a  partial  being:  the  unl)eliev- 
er,  perceiving  that  partiality  is  a  source  of  every  kind  of  wicked- 
ness in  the  world,  concludes  that  the  Author  of  nature  is  an  im- 
moral being,  which  sentiment  he  soon  exchanges  for  atheism.  The 
christian  takes  another  course,  and  insists  that  God  has  a  sove- 
reign right  to  be  partial,  and  to  confine  himself  to  no  rule  of  ac- 
tion buthis  own  capricious  and  independent  will.  They  think  this 
principle  alone  fixes  the  unconditional  and  eternal  destinies,  both 
of  men  and  angels.  If  some  men  are  saved,  and  others  damned,  it 
is  because  God  eternally  predestinated  the  fate  of  each  by  his  so- 
vereign or  arbitrary  will.  If  some  angels  keep  their  first  estate, 
and  others  lose  it,  the  reason  is,  that  the  former  were  always  the 
favourite  objects  of  electing  love,  and  the  latter  of  reprobating 
animosity.  If  human  sinners  are  redeemed  and  restored  from  their 
fallen  condition,  and  angelic  sinners  are  not,  this  also  must  be  re- 
solved into  the  same  distinguishing  grace,  or  electing  partiality, 
as  the  only  reason  or  principle  in  the  divine  nuture  which  made  a 
difterence  between  angels  and  men,  as  it  respects  the  benefits  of  re- 
demption. 

Thus  all  the  links  of  predestination  hang  togetlicr,  and  we  must 
receive  the  whole,  or  totally  reject  the  principle  of  partiality  from 
whence  they  flow;  and  maintain  that  God  has  never  departed  from 
a  pure  regard  to  general  happiness  in  any  act  of  his  administra- 
tion, towards  angels,  or  men,  or  any  other  creatures  in  exis- 
tence. 

As  to  the  fallen  angels,  God  has  not  seen  tit  to  give  us  an  ac- 
count of  the  particulars  of  their  apostaey.  In  what  manner  the 
divine  forbearance  was  manifested  towards  them  we  know  notj 
the  nature,  extent,  and  aggravating  circumstances  of  their  crimes 
we  know  not;  but  if  any  man  shall  have  the  assurance  to  affirm 
that  they  were  passed  by,  through  sovereign  partiality,  m  hen  they 
might  have  had  a  merciful  probati(;n  granted,  consistently  with 
every  moral  principle;  we  may  safely  defy  him  to  support  an  hy- 


37;^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

pothesis  so  unworthy   of  God,  from  scripture  or  from  any  other 
source  of  human  knowledge. 

As  to  tlie  passages  of  scripture  wliieh  speak  of  the  variety  of 
the  Almighty's  dispensations  of  grace  and  providence  here  below, 
and  which  have  been  pressed  into  the  service  of  predestinarian 
sovereignty,  they  have  been  suificiently  examined  by  Mr.  Fletcher 
and  others,  to  whom  I  must  refer  the  reader,  and  have  lieen  shown 
to  accord  perfectly  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  scriptures,  that 
"the  Lord  is  good  to  all; 
works." — Psalm  exiv.  9. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Of    THa   MEANS    OR    CONDITIONS    THROUGH    WHICH     WE  REGEIVt; 
THE  BENEFITS  OF  OHRIST's  ATONEMENT. 


SECTION  I. 

*3  general  view  of  faith. 

Having  considered  the  great  love  wherewith  our  heavenly  fa> 
ther  hath  loved  us,  and  the  fiilnei«s  of  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  for  the  salvation  of  mankind;  it  remains  for  us  to  notice  the 
conditions  on  which  we  are  to  receive  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
atonement,  and  to  enforce  them  upon  the  understanding  and  af- 
fections, by  the  interesting  and  powerful  motives  exhibited  in  the 
gospel. 

Among  all  the  terms  of  acceptance  we  find  stated  in  the  scrip- 
tures, none  is  so  often  mentioned,  and  so  particularly  and  solemn- 
ly enjoined,  as  that  of  believing,  or  the  right  exercise  of  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  rightly  represented  as  the  root  of 
all  christian  virtues.  It  is  urged  upon  us  by  our  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  as  the  grand  instrument  or  condition  of  our  pardon,  sanc- 
tification,  and  perpetual  victory  over  the  world;  and  it  is  so  indis- 
pensable in  every  stage  of  our  progress  to  heaven,  that  "without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God."  It  is  therefore  a  matter  of 
the  first  importance  for  us  to  understand  this  essential  doctrine  of 
the  gospel,  on  which  our  eternal  welfare  so  manifestly  depends. 

To  believe  a  report,  to  give  it  credit,  or  to  have  faitk  in  it,  are 
terms  well  understood  by  men  in  general;  but  they  are  terras  not 
capable  of  what  is  called -a  logical  definition.  We  know  that  be- 
lieving is  an  act  or  decision  of  ihe  mind  concerning  what  is  true 
or  false;  all  correct  faith  has  truth  for  its  object,  and  that  which 
takes  falsehood  for  truth,  is  a  mistaken  belief  or  delusion;  but  a 
correct  belief  may  exist  in  various  degrees,  and  may  produce  vari- 
ous effects,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  truth  it  embraces. 

Those  words  are  used  by  the  inspired  writers  in  different  senses, 
and  many  I  apprehend  haveconfoundedthosediftercutapplications 
of  the  word  faith,  or  believing,  or  not  sufficiently   distinguished 
3B 


37^  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

them,  and  have  thereby  brought  great  confusion  into  their  own 
conceptions,  and  bewildered  the  minds  of  others. 

The  term  faith,  is  sometimes  applied  to  a  single  act  of  believ- 
ing, on  a  particular  occasion;  at  other  times,  to  a  continued  act, 
or  habitual  adherence  to  the  truth. 

It  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  simple  assent  of  the  understand- 
ing; at  other  times,  it  means  an  adherence  to  truth,  by  the  united 
embrace  of  the  understanding  and  affections.  In  some  passages  it 
applies  to  the  act  of  believing;  in  others,  to  the  object  of  it;  and  in 
others,  to  the  effects  of  it. 

That  the  words  sometimes  apply  to  a  single  act,  on  a  particular 
occasion,  will  be  readily  admitted;  and  I  need  only  refer  to  Acts 
xiv.  9.  and  Matt.  viii.  13.  for  an  example. 

But  when  the  promise  of  eternal  life  is  connected  with  our 
faith  or  believing,  those  words  are  applied  to  the  continued  and 
habitual  state  of  the  mind.  "He  that  believeth  [perseveringly] 
shall  be  saved."  Markxvi.  16. 

<'But  we  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto  perdition;  but  of 
them  that  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul."  Heb.  x.  39.  "That  is, 
we  are  not  of  them  who  for  a  while  believe,  and  in  time  of  temp- 
tation fall  away , like  those  mentioned."  Luke  viii.  13.  "But  we  are  of 
those  who  continue  in  the  faith,  grounded  and  settled,  and  are  not 
moved  away  from  the  hope  of  the  gospel."  Col.  i.  23.  "This  is 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,"  says  our  Saviour,  "that  every  one 
which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting 
life:  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  John  vi.  40.  The 
term,  believeth  on  him,  evidently  signifies  a  continued  act,  or  habit 
of  believing;  for  eternal  life  is  not  promised  to  those  who  "make 
shipwreck  of  faith  and  a  good  conscience;"  but  to  those  who  "con- 
tinue in  the  faith,  and  through  much  tribulation,  enter  into  the 
Isingdom  of  God."    Acts  xiv.  22. 

Faith  sometimes  means  a  bare  assent  of  the  understanding,  and 
many  who  never  were  justified,  or  even  awakened  to  a  conviction 
of  the  evil  nature  of  sin,  are  said  to  have  believed.  This  is  evi- 
dent from  Acts  viii.  13.  "Then  Simon  himself  believed  also;  and 
when  he  was  baptised,  he  continued  with  Philip,  and  wondered, 
heholding  the  miracles  and  signs  which  were  done."  And  yet  it  is 
obvious  from  the  context,  that  he  was  all  the  while  "in  the  gall  of 
bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity."  Verse  23. 

"King  Agrippa,  believest  thou  the  prophets?  1  know  that  thou 
believest.  Then  Agrippa  said  unto  Paul,  almost  thou  persuad- 
est  me  to  be  a  christian."    Acts  xxvi.  27. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  375 

That  many  are  said  to  have  believed,  who  continued  in  a  state 
of  condemnation,  is  still  more  evident  from  John  xii.  42.  "Never- 
theless, among  the  chief  rulers  also  many  believed  on  him;  but  be- 
cause of  the  Pharisees,  they  did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should 
be  put  out  of  the  synagogue;  for  they  loved  the  praise  of  men 
more  than  the  praise  of  God."  Will  any  one  say  those  persons, 
who  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of  God,  and  re- 
fused to  confess  Christ  before  men,  were  really  in  a  state  of  ac- 
ceptance or  justification? 

There  are  tjiousands  of  such  believers  at  the  present  day:  they 
have  believed  in  Christianity  from  their  youlh,  and  continue  still 
to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Sou  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of 
sinuers.  And  yet  they  are  ashamed  of  Christ  and  his  words  be- 
fore an  adulterous  and  sinful  generation,  and  love  the  praise  of 
men  more  than  the  praise  of  God.  They  are  yet  in  their  sins,  and 
the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  them.  How  can  it  then  be  said  that 
all  that  believe  are  justified,  and  have  passed  from  death  unto 
life?  To  answer  this  question,  we  must  consider  in  what  the  de- 
ficiency of  this  faith  consists,  and  wherein  it  diifers  from  that 
which  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness. 

The  deficiency  consists  in  its  want  of  energy,  as  a  principle  of 
action,  to  move  the  affections,  and  regulate  the  conduct.  The 
faith  which  God  requires,  is  not  merely  an  indifferent  assent  of  the 
mind,  as  a  principle  of  speculative  knowledge;  but  it  is  that  which 
is  influential  as  a  principle  of  action,  to  excite  the  affections,  to 
work  by  love,  and  to  purify  the  heart.  "For  as  the  body  without 
the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also."  Jam.  ii.  26. 

The  cause  of  this  deficiency  is  the  false  foundation  on  which 
their  faith  is  built.  Evidence  is  not  the  ground  of  their  belief,  and 
though  the  object  of  it  be  true,  yet  it  is  not  for  the  sake  of  truth 
they  believe  it:  they  have  never  examined  the  evidence,  nor  felt 
any  solicitude  to  understand  it;  but  they  believe  merely  for  the 
sake  of  being  in  the  fashion,  or  through  some  other  sinister  mo- 
tive; their  faith,  therefore,  is  not  the  dictate  of  candour,  which  re- 
gulates the  belief  by  evidence,  but  the  dictate  oi prejudice  or  bigot- 
ry, which  influences  men  to  believe  things,  not  for  the  sake  of 
their  being  true,  but  for  the  sake  of  their  subserviency  to  some 
private  and  selfish  gratification. 

Many  believe  the  scriptures,  because  they  can  appeal  to  the 
scriptures,  for  the  support  of  their  party;  and  the  support  of  their 
party  is  essential  to  the  support  of  their  popularity,  as  well  as  to 
many  other  private  advantages.  They  believe  Christ  is  the  Son  of 


&76  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

God,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  not  because  thej  feel  any  needi 
of  a  Saviour,  or  any  solicitude  to  examine  the  evidence  of  his  mis- 
sion, but  because  it  is  the  belief  of  (heir  relations  and  neighbours; 
to  disbelieve  would  be  unfashionable,  and  they  esteem  it  better  to 
be  out  of  the  world  than  to  be  out  of  the  fashion.  Thef'dogmati- 
cally  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  justification  by  faith;  and 
the  uew-birthj  not  because  they  have  any  concern  to  understand 
these  matters,  or  to  know  their  evidence  and  importance;  but  be- 
cause they  have  been  the  distinguishing  tenets  of  their  fathers 
and  ancestors  for  some  centuries,  and  because  the  belief  of  them  is 
necessary  to  distinguish  them  from  Infidels,  Socinians,  and  other 
heretics.  Thu§  their  faith  is  good  for  nothing,  because  it  does  not 
arise  from  a  regard  to  truth,  but  from  a  regaixl  to  something  else. 

Others  may  believe  from  the  influence  of  evidence  which  they 
cannot  resist,  as  many  of  the  Jews  did;  but  their  want  of  candour 
influences  them  to  suppress  the  evidence,  or  to  neglect  an  honest 
pursuit  of  it,  for  fear  of  losing  their  popularity;  "for  they  love  the 
praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of  God."  Such  believers  are 
as  deficient  as  the  others,  because  they  are  equally  destitute  of  a 
pure  regard  to  truth. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  not  only  confirmed  by  experience 
and  daily  observation,  but  also  by  our  Lord's  express  declaration 
to  the  Jews.  "How  can  ye  believe,"  says  he,  "which  receive  hon- 
our one  of  another,  and  seek  not  the  honour  that  cometh  from  God 
only?  Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father:  there  is 
one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  in  whom  ye  trust.  For  had  ye 
believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me:  for  he  wrote  of  me. 
But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  hpw  shall  ye  believe  my  words?" 
John  v.  44-.  &c. 

Are  we  to  infer  from  this,  that  the  Jews  did  not  believe  the 
writings  of  Moses?  They  surely  appealed  to  Moses  on  all  occa- 
sions, and  believed  in  his  divine  mission,  and  his  writings,  with  a 
most  bigoted  and  dogmatical  assurance.  This  our  Saviour  plainly 
intimates,  when  he  says,  even  J\Ioses,  in  whom  ye  trust.  They 
could  not  surely  trust  in  him,  if  they  had  no  faith  in  his  writings. 
And  yet  it  is  added  immediately,  "had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would 
have  believed  me:  for  he  wrote  of  me."  The  solution  is  easy:  the 
Jews  believed  in  Moses,  just  as  Simon  the  sorcerer  believed  in  Je- 
sus, as  "many  of  the  chief  rulers  believed  on  him,"  and  as  thou- 
sands in  our  days  believe  in  his  religion:  that  is,  they  believed  in 
Moses,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  truth  containetl  in  his  writings,  but 
for  the  sake  of  supporting  their  party,  their  popularity,  and  their 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  syy 

fond  presumptions,  that  God's  partiality  confined  all  the  promise? 
to  their  holy  nation,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  Gentile  heretics.  Had 
they  examined  the  writings  of  Moses  with  candour,  and  with  an 
honest  tind  sincere  desire  to  know  the  truth,  they  would  have  be- 
lieved in  another  manner;  the  truth  thus  rightly  attended  to  would 
have  had  its  effect:  it  would  have  produced  a  conviction  of  iheir 
hostility  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  Moses:  it  would  have  enlight- 
ened their  understanding,  under  the  divine  influence,  and  have 
given  them  to  see  and  feel  the  importance  of  those  matters,  and  of 
their  deep  interest  in  them:  it  w  ould  have  led  them  to  examine  the 
prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah,  with  a  candid  desire  to  enter 
into  their  meaning:  hence  their  faith,  having  this  proper  influence 
upon  their  attections  and  conduct,  would  have  led  them  honestly 
to  compare  the  writings  of  Moses  with  the  doctrine  and  miracles 

.  of  the  Redeemer,  which  would  have  produced  a  sincere  and  hear- 
ty belief  in  his  divinity.  Had  the  Jews  thus  believed  the  writings 
of  Moses,  they  would  have  believed  in  Christ:  for  Moses  wrote  of 
him. 

The  apostle  tells  us,  "The  end  of  the  commandment  is  charity, 
out  of  a  pure  heart,  and  of  a  good  conscience,  and  of  faith  unfeign- 
ed." 1  Tim.  i.  5.  Again  he  says,  "I  call  to  remembrance  the  un- 
feigned faith  that  is  in  thee,  which  dwelt  first  in  thy  grandmother 
Lois,  and  thy  mother  Eunice;  and  I  am  persuaded  that  in  thee 
also."  2  Tim.  i.  5. 

From  this  the  inference  is  clear,  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as 

feigned  fuith^  and  that  the  excellency  of  Timothy's  faith  consisted 
in  its  being  unfeigned.  When  a  man's  faith  is  regulated  by  a  re- 
gard to  truth,  and  by  a  candid  survey  of  its  evidence  and  impor- 
tance; when  it  arises  from  a  sincere  desire  and  honest  intention  to 
seek  the  truth,  and  to  follow  it  without  prejudice  or  partiality; 
this  faith  is  unfeigned,  and  will  never  fail  to  influence  the  affec- 
tions, and  regulate  the  conduct  of  its  possesser. 

This  is  the  faith  required  in  the  gospel.  That  sincerity  and 
honesty  of  mind,  which  yields  to  the  force  of  evidence,  and  which 
searches  into  the  truth  of  God,  with  a  willingness  to  sacrifice  eve- 
ry prejudice  for  its  sake,  is  well  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God;  be- 
cause it  admits  truth  into  the  aftections  as  well  as  the  understand- 
ing, and  leads  us  to  abandon  those  beloved  vices  which  are  hos- 
tile to  all  goodness,  and  to  submit  ourselves  to  the  gracious  gov- 
ernment of  our  Redeemer.  That  the  faith  which  is  required  to 
justification  and  eternal  happiness,  is  of  this  description,  and  im- 
plies the  united  exercise  of  the  understanding  and  aftections,  in 


srs  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

©ur  embrace  of  the  truth,  is  evident  from  the  general  tenor  of  the 
scriptures.  "And  Philip  said  if  thou  believest  with  all  thine  hearty 
thou  mayest.  For  with  the  lieartman  believeth  unto  righteousness, 
and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation."  Acts  viii. 
37.  Rom.  X.  10. 

We  have  said  the  term  faith,  or  believing,  is  sometimes  appli- 
ed to  the  object  of  it.  This  might  be  proved  by  many  passages: 
but  let  it  suffice  to  produce  only  a  few. 

"By  whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostleship,  for  obedi- 
ence to  the  faith  among  all  nations."  Rom.  i.  5.  Here  obedience 
to  the  faith  means,  obedience  to  the  gospel,  or  to  the  doctrines  of 
Christ,  w  ho  is  the  object  of  our  faith. 

*'Say  not  in  thine  heart,  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven?  [that  is, 
to  bring  Christ  down  from  above]  or,  who  shall  descend  into  the 
deep?  [that  is,  to  bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead.]  But  what 
saith  it?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy 
heart:  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which  we  preach."  Rom.  x.  8,  &c. 
The  word  of  faith  which  we  preach,  evidently  means  Christ  the 
object  of  faith,  who  is  nigh  thee,  and  not  afar  off  in  heaven  or  in 
the  deep. 

"  He  which  persecuted  us  in  times  past,  now  preacheth  the 
faith  which  once  he  destroyed."  That  is,  he  now  preacheth  the 
doctrines  of  Christ  crucified,  which  once  he  opposed  with  great 
rage  and  bigotry." — Gal.  i.  23. 

"  But  after  that  faith  is  come  [that  is,  after  Christ  is  come 
with  the  revelation  of  his  gospel]  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master."— Gal.  iii.  25. 

Lastly,  the  term  is  sometimes  used  and  intended  to  include  the 
whole  effects  of  fiiith,  and  is  not  to  be  limited  merely  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  mind  in  believing. 

"  Examine  yourselves  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith:"  that  is, 
whether  ye  be  in  the  divine  favour,  and  have  the  fruits  of  the 
spirit,  as  the  evidence  of  your  acceptance  in  the  beloved.  "  Know 
ye  not  your  own  selves,  how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye 
be  reprobates?"  2  Cor.  xiii.  5, 

"  Hearken,  my  beloved  brethren,  hath  not  God  chosen  the  poor 
of  this  world  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  which  he 
hath  promised  to  them  that  love  him?"  Jam.  ii.  5.  By  their  be- 
ing rich  iufaithi  the  apostle  means  the  true  riches  which  our  Sa- 
viour recommends.  They  are  rich  in  "  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suf- 
fering, gentleness,  meekness,"  and  all  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  which 
are  produced  and  continued  in  us  by  faith,  as  its  effects;  but  they 
may  be  conceived  distinctly,  and  are  often  distinguished  from  faitK 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  a79 

in  the  scriptures,  though  in  these  passages  and  a  few  others,  the 
word  is  used  in  a  figurative  way,  to  include  all  its  consequences 
as  well  as  the  thing  itself. 

"Now  faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  and  the  evidence 
of  things  not  seen."     Heb.  xi.  1. 

The  word  in  this  passage  is  used  in  its  largest  sense,  and  in- 
cludes the  fulness  of  christian  experience.  It  is  not  the  mere  act 
of  believing,  but  the  whole  of  that  love  and  joyful  communion  with 
God,  which  a  christian  feels,  that  is,  the  substance  of  things  hop- 
ed for.  Does  a  christian  wish  to  know  the  nature  of  those  plea- 
sures that  are  at  God's  right  hand  forevermore?  His  present 
peace  and  joy  in  believing,  is  the  substance  thereof;  that  is,  the 
joys  of  heaven  are  the  same  in  substance  with  his  present  happi- 
ness hi  God,  though  far  higher  in  degree,  and  have  no  mixture  of 
temptation  or  inquietude. 

But  is  not  all  correct  faith  regulated  by  evidence?  How  then  can 
faith  itself  be  an  evidence  of  things  not  seen?  If  it  be  proved  to  a 
man  that  there  is  a  heaven  of  eternal  happiness  for  the  upright, 
and  if  he  believe  the  report  upon  this  evidence,  wilJ  his  believiu" 
it  bring  any  new  evidence  of  the  fact.^  Not  if  the  term  faith  be 
used  according  to  its  common  meaning,  to  signify  the  mere  act  of 
the  mind  in  believing;  but  if  it  be  applied  to  the  full  experience  of 
a  christian,  to  include  his  act  of  believing  and  his  immediate  com- 
munion with  God,  as  the  effect  of  it,  this  is  truly  an  evidence  of 
things  not  seen:  for  God  having  appointed  faith  as  the  condition 
or  medium  through  which  he  manifests  himself  to  the  soul,  when 
a  man  embraces  the  Lord  Jesus  as  his  God  and  Saviour,  the  love 
of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  his  heart,  which  produces  an  immediate 
conviction  or  consciousness  of  the  divine  presence  entirely  un- 
known before.  This  is  a  new  evidence  or  conviction  of  things  not 
seen,  produced  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  consequence 
of  our  believing:  "for  the  spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  Rom.  viii.  16.  This  new 
witness^  or  evidence  of  things  not  seen,  is  not  the  act  of  faith,  but 
the  effect  of  it;  for  it  is  the  spirit  that  bears  witness,  and  we  re- 
ceive the  spirit  by  the  hearing  of  faith;  (Gal.  iii.  2.)  therefore 
faith  itself  is  not  the  witness,  because  it  is  faith  that  receives  it: 
the  receiver  and  the  thing  received  are  not  surely  the  same  thing, 
though  the  term  faith  is  sometimes  used  in  a  figurative  way  to 
comprehend  them  both. 

Having  noticed  the  several  applications  of  this  word,  we  now 
meet  the  long  contested  question,  is  faith  the  i^ift  of  God? 
Answer: 


330  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

1.  Let  us  apply  the  question  to  the  faith  of  Simoif,  and  thoS^ 
chief  rulers,  who  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of 
God:  was  their  faith  the  gift  of  God?  If  the  inquiry  relate  to 
Christ,  the  object  of  their  faith,  (for  they  believed  on  him)  this  sure- 
ly was  the  gift  of  God,  for  God  gave  his  Son,  and  had  this  gift 
been  withheld,  he  could  never  have  been  an  object  of  their  faith. 
If  we  mean  the  j;o«pr  to  believe,  this  also  was  the  gift  of  God,  as 
are  all  the  intellectual  and  physical  powers  of  a  human  being.  But 
if  the  meaning  be,  were  they  enabled  to  believe  by  an  immediate 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.''  I  think  the  answer  must  be  given 
in  the  negative.  Thousands  believe  in  Christ  with  an  indifferent 
speculative  faith,  and  they  have  a  natural  power  to  believe  in  this 
manner,  without  any  immediate  influence  from  above. 

2.  As  to  the  faith  required  in  the  gospel,  that  is,  faith  unfeign- 
ed, which  properly  influences  the  affections  and  the  conduct,  this 
is  the  gift  of  God  in  all  the  senses  above  mentioned.  The  object, 
the  power  to  believe,  and  the  spiritual  itijlitence  through  which  we 
believe,  are  all  the  gift  of  God. 

3.  When  faith  is  applied  to  the  gospel,  and  the  system  of  doc- 
trines contained  therein,  as  it  often  is,  every  christian  will  ac- 
knowledge that  this  heavenly  system  is  the  gift  of  God. 

4.  When  the  word  is  applied  to  the  etfecis  of  faith,  or  the  in- 
dwelling power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  becomes  a  new  "evidence 
of  things  not  seen,  by  bearing  witness  with  our  spirits  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God,"  this  is  certainly  the  gift  of  God.  He  has 
promised  to  give  us  the  Comforter  to  abide  with  us,  and  his  word 
assures  us  we  are  to  receive  it  by  faith. 

5.  Confining  the  query  to  that  act  or  exercise  of  the  mind  in  be- 
lieving, by  which  we  are  influenced  to  do  the  works  of  God,  and 
by  which  we  receive  the  in-dwelling  Comforter,  properly  called 
gospel  faith,  Ave  must  say,  either  (1.)  that  it  is  an  act  of  the  hu- 
man mind,  independent  of  any  immediate  influence  from  above; 
or  (2.)  that  it  is  an  act  of  God,  producing  an  eft'ect  upon  the  hu- 
man mind,  without  any  voluntary  act  of  that  mind;  or  (3.)  that  it 
is  a  voluntary  act  of  the  human  mind,  in  conjunction  with,  or  aid- 
ed by,  an  immediate  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

If  we  admit  t\\e  first,  it  will  follow  that  man  is  able,  of  himself, 
and  independent  of  any  spiritual  assistance  from  God,  to  believe 
with  a  faith  that  justitieth  the  ungodly,  that  purifieth  the  heart, 
and  that  overcometh  the  world.  This  coutradicts  the  w  hole  tenor 
of  the  gospel. 


PLAN  OiP  SALVATION.  381 

If  we  admit  the  second,  it  will  follow  that  faith  is  no  gospel  du- 
ty, enjoined  on  man,  but  is  as  exclusively  the  act  of  God,  as  the 
creation  of  this  world.  If  it  be  a  duty  at  all,  it  must  be  the  duty 
of  God,  for  it  is  supposed  to  be  the  sole  act  of  God,  and  we  are  as 

passive  in  receiving  it,  as  we  were  in  receiving  our  existence 

To  say,  therefore,  that  it  is  man's  duty  for  God  to  act  faith,  is  as 
ridiculous  as  to  say  it  is  man's  duty  for  God  to  create  another 
world.  If  any  person  can,  with  his  eyes  open,  and  with  the  bible 
before  him,  admit,  either  that  faith  is  not  a  gospel  duty  required 
of  man,  as  a  condition  of  salvation;  or  that  it  ever  was  enjoined 
on  man,  as  his  duty,  to  perform  the  actions  of  God,  I  feel  no  more 
disposition  to  reason  with  such  a  person,  than  I  should  to  reason 
with  Mr.  Hume  concerning  the  "existence  of  an  external  universe." 
I  think  there  is  no  possible  alternative  but  to  admit  the  third,  that 
gospel  faith  is  "a  voluntary  act  of  the  human  mind,  in  conjunc- 
tion with,  or  aided  by,  an  immediate  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
embracing  the  truth  of  God,  both  with  the  understanding  and  the 
affections." 


SECTION  IL 

Of  faith  as  the  condition  of  our  acceptance  or  justification. 

Genuine  gospel-faith  embraces  different  truths  at  different 
times,  and  exists  in  various  degrees. 

"Ye  believe  in  God,"  says  our  Saviour,  "believe  also  in  me." 
John  xiv.  1.  The  disciples  had  long  before  this  believed  in  him  in 
some  sense,  that  is,  they  had  believed  this  truth;  "Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Messiah  sent  from  God;"  but  he  was  now  proposing  another 
truth  concerning  himself,  and  exhorting  them  to  believe  it,  as  Ave 
find  inverse  10,11.  "The  words  that  1  speak  unto  you,  1  speak  not  of 
myself:  but  the  Father,  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works. 
Believe  me  that  I  am'in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me;  or  else 
believe  me  for  the  very  works'  sake." 

■  1.  "They  believed  in  God."  2.  "That  Christ  was  the  Messiah, 
sent  from  God."  3.  "That  he  and  the  Father  were  one.-'  4.  "That 
he  died  for  our  sins,  and  rose  again  for  our  justification."  3  "That 
he  came  to  be  a  spiritual  Saviour,  manifesting  the  love  of  God  to 
8  C 


382  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

his  people,  by  the  in-dwelling  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
two  last  articles  they  appear  not  to  have  believed  till  after  our 
Lord's  resurrection, as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  remark  presently 

That  there  are  various  degrees  in  true  faith  is  evident  from 
many  passages  of  scripture;  a  few  we  will  notice.  "I  am  not  asham" 
ed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ;  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion to  every  one  that  believeth:  for  therein  is  the  righteousness  of 
God  revealed  from  failh  to  faith."  Rom.  i.  16,  17.  Here  the  apos- 
tle informs  us  the  gospel  is  intended  to  communicate  light  and 
truth  to  the  human  mind  progressively;  from  faith  to  faith.  One 
truth  embraced  opens  the  way  for  another;  one  act  of  faith  pre- 
pares the  mind  for  another;  and  thus  we  proceed  regularly, /rom 
faith  to  faith. 

Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  1  epistle,  chapter  iii.  verse  6,  says, 
"Timotheus  came  from  you  unto  us,  and  brought  us  good  tidings 
of  your  faith  and  charity."  And  in  verse  10,  he  speaks  of  "pray- 
ing exceedingly  that  we  might  see  your  faces,  and  might  perfect 
that  which  is  lacking  in  your  faith."  From  this  I  infer  that  they 
then  heartily  believed  according  to  the  light  they  had,  and  yet  a 
higher  degree  of  faith  was  necessary,  and  the  apostle  had  a  strong 
desire  to  go  and  preach  to  them  some  higher  truth,  which  they 
were  now  in  a  proper  state  to  receive,  that  he  might  "perfect  that 
which  was  lacking  in  their  faith."  In  the  next  epistle,  he 
says,  "we  are  bound  to  thank  God  always  for  you,  brethren,  be- 
cause that  your  faith  groweth  exceedingly,  and  the  charity  of  every 
one  of  you  all  towards  each  other  aboundeth."  2  Thess.  i.  3. 

By  one  degree  of  faith  we  are  influenced  to  repent,  or  come  un- 
to God:  "For  he  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him."  Heb.xv.6. 
By  such  a  faith  in  God's  promise  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  influences  us 
to  forsake  our  sins  and  submit  to  the  covenant  of  mercy,  we  are 
brought  into  a  state  of  acceptance  with  God.  For  "to  him  give 
all  the  prophets  witness,  that,  through  his  name,  whosoever  be- 
lieveth in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  Acts  x.  43.  By 
another  degree  of  it  we  experience  the  new  birth,  or  receive  the 
spirit  of  adoption  whereby  we  cry  Abba  Father.  For  "whoso- 
ever believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God:  and  he 
that  [thus]  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  him- 
self." 1  Jolin  V.  1,  10.  "For  whatsoever  is  born  of  God  overcometh 
the  world:  and  this  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the  world,  even 
our  faith."  Verse  4.  "Little  children  your  sins  are  forgiven  for 
his  name's  sake.— Young  men — ye  have  overcome  the  wicked  one. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  883 

Fathers — ye  have  kuown  him  that  is  from  the  beginning."  i  John 
ii.  12, 13.  "Though  now  ye  see  him  not,  yet  believing,  ye  rejoice 
with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory."  1  Pet.  i.  8.  "Purifying 
their  hearts  by  faith."  Acts  xv.  9.  "Sanctified  by  faith  that  is  in 
me."  Actsxxvi.  IS. 

Those  various  efteets  are  produced,  not  all  at  once,  or  by  one 
single  act  of  faith,  but  at  different  times,  and  by  the  successive  do- 
greesorstages  of  faith,  embracing  different  truths,  as  the  state  of 
the  mind  is  suited  to  receive  them.  To  conceive  this  subject  more 
distinctly,  let  us  weigh  the  following  particulars. 

1.  Faith  is  often  mentioned,  as  though  it  were  the  sole  condi- 
tion of  our  justification.  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
thou  shall  be  saved; — All  that  believe  are  justified; — being  justifi- 
ed by  faith,"  &e.  And  yet  repentance,  confession  and  reformation 
are  stated  as  essential  conditions  of  our  pardon. 

"  Repent  ye  therefare  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out; — If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  for- 
give us  our  sins; — Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way, — and  our  God 
will  abundantly  pardon." 

In  these  promises  of  pardon  faith  is  not  mentioned;  but  repent- 
ance, confession  and  forsaking  our  evil  way,  are  said  to  be  the 
condition.  How  are  these  passages  to  be  reconciled  with  those 
which  speak  of  faith  as  the  only  condition?  Answer:  Faith  is  the 
root  and  ground  of  all  these;  it  is  by  faith  men  are  led  to  repent, 
confess  their  sins,  and  forsake  them;  for  this  very  purpose  they 
were  first  required  to  believe;  and  that  act  of  the  mind  which  so 
embraces  the  truth  as  to  produce  sincere  repentance  and  submis- 
sion to  God,  is  true  gospel-faith,  and  may  well  be  considered  as  the 
single  or  principal  condition  of  our  acceptance,  because  it  is  essen- 
tial to  produce  every  thing  else  required. 

3.  That  every  real  penitent  is  in  possession  of  a  degree  of  genu- 
ing  gospel-faith,  may  be  thus  proved:  God  is  pleased  with  every 
sincere  penitent,  because  he  has  commanded  repentance,  and  to 
say  he  is  not  pleased  with  it,  is  to  say  he  is  not  pleased  that  we 
should  keep  his  commandments.  "  A  broken  and  a  contrite  heart, 
O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise."  Psalm  li.  17.  "A  bruised  reed  shall 
be  not  break,  and  smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench,  till  he  send 
forth  judgment  unto  victory."  Matt.xii.  24.  "The  Lord  is  nigh  un- 
to them  that  are  of  a  broken  heart."  Psalm  xxxiv.  18.  "But  to  this 
man  will  1  look,  even  to  him  that  is  poor,  and  of  a  contrite  spirit, 
and  trembleth  at  my  word,"  Isaiah  Ixvi.  2.  "It  is  thus  evident 
from  many  particular  passages  in  the  scriptures,  as  well  as  from 


384.  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

the  general  account  they  give  us  of  the  nature  of  God,  that  he  is 
pleased  with  sincere  repentance. 

"  But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him:  for  he  that 
Cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  him."  Heb.  xi.  6. 

Therefore  every  true  penitent  has  faith,  as  the  stimulating  prin- 
ciple which  leads  him  to  seek  that  he  may  find,  to  ask  that  he  may 
receive,  and  to  knock  that  it  may  be  opened  unto  him. 

3.  He  that  conieih  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is: — that  he  is 
God,  powerful,  wise,  true,  just  and  good.  A  serious  attention  to 
the  evidence  of  this  great  truth,  and  of  the  sinner's  want  of  con- 
formity to  this  divine  nature,  produces  a  conviction  that  he  is 
guilty  and  polluted,  that  sin  is  exceeding  sinful,  or  in  other  words, 
that  he  is  a  miserable  oftender,  whose  crimes  have  great  demerit, 
and  expose  him  to  a  just  sentence  of  condemnation.  This  leads  to 
godly  sorrow,  to  self-reproaches,  and  to  deep  regret  or  lamentation 
for  having  been  such  an  offender. 

4.  He  must  believe  that  God  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligent- 
ly seek  him.  This  faith,  by  all  who  are  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, has  the  goodness  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ  for  its  object. — 
The  serious,  inquiring  mind  searches  into  the  evidence  of  the  di- 
vine mercy  to  sinners,  and  finds  it  all  pointing  to  Jesas  Christ,  as 
the  only  Mediator  betiveen  God  and  man.  The  gospel  proclaims 
God  in  Christ  reconciling  the  ivorld  unto  himself.  The  poor 
mourner  believes  God  is  a  merciful  Being;  that  he  accepts  all  tru- 
ly penitent  sinners,  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  atonement;  aud  that 
he  will  thus  accept  him  in  the  beloved,  when  he  shall  have  fully 
surrendered  to  the  terms  of  reconciliation, 

5.  When  a  man  exercises  such  a  degree  of  faith  in  these  truths, 
as  produces  a  genuine  repentance;  when  he  has  such  an  abhor- 
renoe  of  sin,  and  such  an  acquiescence  in  God's  plan  of  saving  sin- 
ners, as  leads  him  to  submit  to  Christ  as  his  prophet,  priest  and 
king,  he  is  accepted  in  the  beloved.  When  he  fully  surrenders 
himself,  and  consents  to  be  saved  according  to  the  covenant  of 
mercy  in  Jesus  Christ,  God  is  reconciled  to  him,  because  his  vO' 
hmtiwy  hostility  to  the  divine  government  has  ceased,  which  is 
the  only  thing  that  hinders  any  sinner  of  Adam's  race  from  being 
accepted,  since  Jesus  magnified  the  law  and  made  it  honourable. 

6.  This  laith  is  the  condition  of  the  sinner's  pardon  or  justifica- 
tion. God  has  pledged  his  truth  and  goodness  in  the  Redeemer, 
to  accept  all  sinners  who  lay  down  the  weapons  of  their  rebellion, 
and  sincerely  submit  that  Christ  should  rule  oyer  them.    It  is  by 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  385 

faith  they  are  influenced  to  this,  and  that  very  exercise  of  the 
mind  in  crediting  fJod's  word,  which  leads  to  true  repentance 
confession,  forsaking  of  sin,  and  humble  submission  to  Christ's 
authority,  is  the  condition  of  the  sinner's  pardon  or  acceptance  in 
the  beloved. 

I  am  aware  that  it  has  often  been  represented,  and  it  accords 
perfectly  with  the  whole  system  of  predestination,  that  all  the  sin- 
ner's repentance,  confession,  forsaking ,  sin,  and  the  faith  which 
produced  them,  are  to  go  for  nothing;  and  that  some  new  act  of 
faith  is  required,  as  the  sole  condition  of  his  justification.  That 
in  the  midst  of  all  liis  penitence  and  humble  acknowledgments, 
the  wrath  of  God  is  flaming  against  him,  and  will  so  continue  till 
he  shall  receive  faith;  and  this  new  faith  which  he  receives,  after 
his  repentance,  amendment,  and  submission,  is  the  sole  term  or 
condition  of  his  acceptance.  That  he  has  no  ground  to  expect 
that  any  of  his  attempts  to  seek  the  Lord  are  any  thing  in  God's 
account,  because  "faith  is  the  total  term  of  all  salvation,"  and 
this  faith  he  has  not  yet  received:  it  is  held  at  the  disposal  of  his 
Maker,  and  whether  he  w  ill  ever  give  it  or  not,  depends  upon  his 
own  sovereign  pleasure.  The  penitent  must  lie  at  the  footstool  of 
sovereign  mercy:  if  faith  should  be  given,  all  will  be  well;  but  if 
the  Sovereign  should  refuse  to  give  him  faith,  the  poor  mourning 
creature  must  depart  into  hell  for  not  receiving  it- 

The  sinner  is  supposed  to  receive  faith,  as  passively  as  a  vessel 
receives  water,  and  at  the  same  moment  he  receives  pardon;  this 
faith  is  the  condition  of  his  pardon,  and  yet  it  is  the  sole  act  of 
God,  as  much  as  the  act  of  forgiving  the  sinner's  transgressions! 
Then  it  seems  God  performs  one  act  as  the  condition  of  his  per- 
forming another,  and  this  act  of  God  is  required  as  the  duty  of 
man,  being  the  grand  and  sole  condition,  on  which  his  salvation 
or  damnation  turns!  1  desire  to  know  tiow  this  is  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  plain  word  of  God,  which  promises  pardon  upon  our  con- 
fessing our  sins, — upon  our  repenting  and  being  converted, — and 
upon  our  forsaking  our  way  and  returning  unto  the  Lord.  1  John 
i.  9.  Acts  iii.  19.  Isa.  Iv.  7. 

Is  all  this  included  in  the  faith  we  receive  the  moment  we  are 
justified.^  or  is  it  the  condition  of  our  receiving  that  faith,^  The 
promise  of  pardon  is  given  on  condition  of  repentance,  confession 
and  forsaking  sin;  but  faith  is  represented  in  other  places  as  the 
sole  condition  of  our  acceptance;  therefore  there  is  no  way  to  avoid 
.  charging  the  scriptures  with  contradiction,  but  to  maintain  that 
the  very  faith  which  is  received  as  a  condition  of  forgiveness,  is 


386  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

that  vvliich  compreliends  or  produces  repentance,  confession  and 
amendment.  To  say  a  sinner  is  forgiven  upon  another  faith,  dis- 
tinct from  that  which  produces  repentance,  &c.  is  to  say,  eitlier 
that  he  may  be  forgiven  without  repentance,  or  that  there  are  other 
indispensable  conditions  of  his  receiving  pardon,  beside  that  of 
faith,  and  whicli  are  not  necessarily  connected  with  it.  It  remains 
to  be  proved  then,  that  repentance,  confession  of  sin,  and  forsaking 
it,  are  all  included  in  that  passive  faith  which  we  are  supposed  to 
receive  at  the  moment  of  our  justification,  or  to  contradict  the 
scriptures,  which  necessarily  imply,  that  the  faith  which  is  re- 
ceived as  the  one  condition  of  our  pardon,  is  that  which  compre- 
hends all  the  othej'  conditions  with  which  the  promise  of  pardon 
is  connected. 

To  say  repentance  can  exist  without  faith — that  it  is  the  condi- 
tion on  which  we  receive  faith — and  that  God's  act  of  impressing 
this  faith  upon  our  passive  souls,  is  the  condition  of  our  accep- 
tance— is  a  confused  notion  that  has  arisen  out  of  the  system  of 
predestination,  and  which  has  no  countenance  from  the  oracles  of 
God. 

I  grant  when  the  term  faith  is  used  in  its  highest  and  most  ex- 
tensive sense,  as  including  the  in-dwelling  power  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, it  is  properly  received  from  God;  but  this  blessing  is  received, 
not  as  the  condition  of  our  pardon,  but  as  the  consequence  of  it. 

7.  Pardon  is  an  act  of  the  divine  will:  who  can  forgive  sins  but 
God  only."^  The  act  of  God  in  pardoning  or  accepting  a  penitent 
sinner  in  Christ,  and  his  giving  the  sinner  a  spiritual  manifestation, 
or  full  assurance  of  his  being  accepted,  are  distinct  from  each 
other,  and  are  not  necessarily  inseparable.  The  latter  cannot  exist 
without  the  former:  but  the  former  may  exist  without  the  latter. 
That  is,  a  man  cannot  know  his  acceptance  before  he  is  accepted, 
but  he  may  be  accepted  before  he  has  a  divine  assurance  of  it. 
But  some  appear  to  think  that  a  mane's  consciousness  or  knoivledge 
of  his  acceptance,  is  the  very  faith,  that  is  required  as  the  condi- 
tion of  his  acceptance:  that  is,  that  he  shall  be  accepted,  on  condi- 
tion that  he  first  know  he  is  accepted!  That  God  gives  us  a  divine 
assurance  of  his  love,  not  as  a  cojise^-wej/ce  of  our  believing,  but 
i\\\?,assuranceof  the  divine  favour,  \?,i\\e  very  faith,  on  condition  of 
whicli,  "we  are  received  into  the  divine  favour!"  These  mysteries 
are  truly  worthy  the  Antinomian  Babel. 

There  is  a  passage  in  our  Saviour's  discourse  to  his  disciples, 
most  unhappily  applied  to  prove  this  strange  doctrine:  "At  that 
day  ye  shall  know,  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  3g7 

you."  John  xir.  20.  It  is  taken  for  granted  without  examination 
that  this  promise  of  assurance  applies  to  the  very  day,  and  the 
very  hour,  when  men  are  first  accepted  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus; 
whereas  the  context  is  a  clear  proof  of  the  contrary.  Will  any  man 
presume  to  say  the  disciples  were  following  Jesus  all  this  while 
and  yet  were  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniqui- 
ty?" Were  they  not  accepted  of  the  Father,  and  did  he  not  love 
them,  because  they  had  believed  that  Jesus  came  out  from  Ged? 
And  yet  in  this  chapter  their  kind  Redeemer  is  supporting  their 
minds  against  the  sorrow  they  felt  upon  the  prospect  of  his  ap- 
proaching fate,  by  promising  them  a  comforter  m  hich  should  come 
from  the  Father  after  his  resurrection,  and  abide  with  them  for- 
ever. Speaking  of  this  event,  he  says,  "I  will  not  leave  you  com- 
fortless; I  will  come  to  you."  Verse  18.  That  is,  I  will  come  in 
the  in-dwelling  power  of  my  Holy  Spirit:  ("for  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.")  It 
follows,  "At  that  day  [namely,  "when  the  comforter  is  come, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name"]  ye  shall  know,  that  I  am 
in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you."  Ye  shall  have  a  con- 
scious assurance  of  the  divine  presence,  that  will  be  better  than 
my  personal  presence  with  you. 

This  promise  was  not  fulfilled  till  after  our  Lord's  resurrection. 
The  day  after  his  resurrection  they  still  proved  themselves  slow 
of  heart  to  believe  the  spirituality  of  his  kingdom.  They  were  di- 
rected to  tarry  at  Jerusalem  till  they  should  receive  power  from 
on  high;  and  after  waiting  sometime  in  faith  and  prayer,  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  upon  them,  and  after  this  they  went  on  tlieir  way  with 
an  unwavering  assurance,  very  different  from  the  doubtful  and  un- 
settled state  of  mind  they  had  manifested  before. 

8.  This  divine  assurance  is  also  received  by  faith.  There  is  a 
distinction  between  this  faith  and  that  which  brought  the  sinner 
to  a  state  of  acceptance,  both  as  to  the  particular  truth  believed, 
and  as  to  the  effiect  of  believing.  In  the  former  case  the  truth  be- 
lieved was  this:  "God  being  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  him,"  accepts  all  penitents  who  heartily  repent  of  their  sins, 
and  fully  submit  to  the  Redeemer,  as  their  prophet,  priest  and 
king.  He  will  pardon  and  accept  me  in  the  beloved,  Mhen  I  shall 
Iiave  fully  surrendered  to  the  terms  of  reconciliation.  This  faith 
leads  to  "diligent  seeking,  asking,  humiliation,  confession,  stri- 
ving against  sin,  disclaiming  personal  merit,  relying  upon  Christ,-' 
&c.  In  order  to  make  a  full  surrender,  and  meet  the  gracious 
overtures  of  God,  in   his  covenant  of  mercy  through  Jesus  Christ 


388  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

The  truth  believed  in  the  latter  case  is  this:  "God  is  now  my 
reconciled  Father,  and  graciously  accepts  me  as  his  child,  for  the 
sake  of  the  merit  and  atonement  of  my  Re<leemer."  This  faith  af- 
fectionately embraces  God  as  a  Father  and  a  friend;  it  relies  upon 
him  with  a  filial  confidence,  and  "sets  to  our  seal  that  God  is  true," 
in  his  great  and  precious  promises;  and  he  kindly  answers,  accord- 
ing to  thy  faith  so  be  it  unto  thee;  and  gives  us  the  spirit  of  adop- 
tion, whereby  we  cry  abba  Father. 

This  is  the  faith  by  which  a  christian  gains  his  victories  over 
the  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil.  A  filial  confidence  in  God  as 
our  loving  Father  in  Jesus  Christ,  invigorates  every  faculty  of 
our  souls,  and  influences  us,  "by  patient  continuance  in  well  do- 
ing," to  "seek  for  glory,  and  honour,  and  immortality.  Cast  not 
away  your  confidence,  which  hath  great  recompense  of  reward.'^ 
God  is  well  pleased  to  see  us  trust  in  his  paternal  goodness;  and 
for  a  christian  to  cast  away  his  confidence  in  God,  as  his  reconci- 
led Father,  while  conscious  of  a  sincere  desire  and  purpose  to  do 
his  will  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  is  to  reproach  his  Maker,  and  t« 
represent  him  as  being  less  willing  to  be  reconciled  with  his  crea- 
tures, than  they  are  to  be  reconciled  with  him.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  a  penitent,  who  with  the  most  sincere  solicitude  has  long 
laboured  to  forsake  all  his  sins,  and  to  submit  to  his  merciful  Re- 
deemer; but  who  is  still  writing  bitter  things  against  himself,  and 
considering  God  as  being  afar  ott',  frowning  with  vengeance  upon 
his  soul.  "He  abhors  himself,  repenting  in  dust  and  ashes;"  and 
yet,  being  entaiigled  in  the  theories  of  predestination,  he  holds  it 
altogether  doubtful  whether  the  Sovereign  pleasure  will  deign  to 
regard  his  plaintive  cries.  The  great  God,  he  thinks,  is  very  an- 
gry with  him,  and  intends  never  to  give  him  faith.  All  his  peni- 
tence he  has  been  taught  to  consider  as  filthincss,  and  his  very 
breath  is  sin!  He  has  no  ground  to  indulge  any  confidence  in  God, 
on  account  of  his  deep  repentance,  and  his  hungering  after  the 
blessings  of  the  new  covenent;  but  must  ever  consider  himself  as 
an  accursed  being,  unless  it  should  please  God  to  give  him  faith; 
and  this  is  altogether  uncertain,  for  if  his  present  contrition  and 
humility  are  nothing  in  God's  account,  what  likelihood  is  there 
that  God  will  give  faith  to  him  any  sooner  than  to  an  impenitent 
sinner.?  Is  there  any  promise  in  the  bible  that  God  will  give  a  man 
fiiith,  in  consequence  of  his  repentance?  Is  it  any  where  said,  "Re- 
pent ye  therefore,  and  be  converted,"  and  I  will  give  you  faith.^ 
Is  there  any  promise  that  "If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful 
and  just"  to  give  us  faith?    What  unbecoming  thoughts  of  God 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  339 

is  this  poor  creature  taught  to  entertain!  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
has  died  upon  the  cross  for  his  redemption;  his  soul  is  weary  of 
his  sins,  and  pants  after  the  living  God,  more  than  for  his  neces- 
sary food;  and  yet  he  thinks  the  Almighty  refuses  to  be  reconciled! 
He  ought  to  consider  that  God  is  love,  and  that  he  is  reconciled 
to  every  soul  of  us  the  very  moment  we  are  reconciled  to  give  up 
our  sins,  and  submit  to  the  government  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
His  unchangeable  character  is  pledged:  the  promise  is  given:  itis 
confirmed  by  an  oath,  and  sealed  with  "the  blood  of  the  everlast- 
ing covenant:"  and  yet  we  are  to  suppose,  it  seems,  that  however 
a  sinner  may  repent,  and  prostrate  himself  at  the  feet  of  Jesus, 
God  is  no  more  reconciled  with  him  than  with  any  other  sinner. 
"Faith  is  the  total  term  of  all  salvation:"  God  has  not  been  pleased 
to  give  him  faith;  he  has  never  promised  to  give  it  on  condition  of 
repentance;  and  therefore  this  person  may  repent  and  strive  during 
the  whole  of  his  probation,  and  still  continue  a  poor  miserable  un- 
believer, because  God  will  not  give  him  faith. 

If  it  be  said  all  those  will  certainly  receive  faith  who  rightly 
seek  and  ask  for  it,  I  must  answer,  (1.)  I  know  of  no  passage  Ih 
the  bible  which  commands  us  to  ask  for  faith.  In  one  place  the 
disciples  prayed,  Lord  increase  our  faith,  and  a  certain  person  on 
another  occasion  said,  Lord  I  believe,  help  thou  mine  unbeliefj 
but  this  supposes  they  had  faith,  and  only  prayed  for  help,  or 
spiritual  assistance,  that  the  same  faith  might  be  increased.  (2.) 
Although  Christ  has  assured  us  our  "heavenly  Father  will  give 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him,"  and  that  this  Spirit  w  ill 
help  our  infirmities,  yet  I  know  of  no  promise  that  God  will  give 
faith  to  them  that  ask  him.  And  if  there  be  no  such  promise,  oix 
what  ground  is  it  presumed  so  confidently  that  this  passive  faith 
which  is  received  in  the  moment  of  justification,  will  be  given  to 
all  that  seek  and  ask  for  it?  (3.)  We  are  commanded  to  seek  and 
ask  in  faith,  and  are  assured  that  the  man  who  does  not  pray  ia 
faith  is  like  a  wave  of  the  sea;  and  "let  not  that  man  think 
that  he  shall  receive  any  thing  of  the  Lord."  James  i.  6,  7.  Now  if 
we  ask  before  we  have  faith,  we  certainly  ask  w  ithout  faith,  and 
therefore  shall  not  receive  any  thing  of  the  Lord;  and  it  is  very 
evident  that  the  very  faith  which  accompanies  our  seeking  and 
asking  is  the  condition  of  our  acceptance.  If  men  receive  faith  in 
the  moment  of  their  justification,  in  consequence  of  seeking  and 
asking  for  it,  then  we  say  their  seeking  and  asking  are  the  condi- 
tion, and  faith  is  the  very  blessing  they  receive  in  consequence  of 
performing  the  condition;  which  plainly  contradicts  the  deciara- 
3D 


390  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

tiou  of  St.  James,  as  well  as  several  important  sayings  of  oar  Re- 
deemer. 

But  it  maybe  objected  "that  a  man  must  feel  that  he  is  pardoned 
and  accepted  in  the  beloved,  before  lie  can  believe  it;  otherwise  he 
may  deceive  himself  and  believe  a  falsehood."  Answer: 

1.  Is  it  not  equally  possible  for  a  man  to  take  some  feeling  for 
a  pardon,  which  is  only  imaginary.^  and  if  so,  is  he  not  equally  li- 
able to  deceive  himself  and  believe  a  falsehood,  on  supposition 
that  he  must  first  feel  his  acceptance,  and  then  believe  it,  as  he  is 
on  supposition  that  he  must  first  believe  in  God's  fatherly  appro- 
bation of  him  in  the  beloved,  and  receive  the  evidence  or  con- 
sciousness of  it  through  the  medium  of  this  cordial  embrace  of  his 
Heavenly  Father  by  faith? 

2.  God  requires  of  us  to  believe  his  truth  upon  the  evidence  ex- 
hibited in  the  gospel,  before  he  gives  us  the  full  evidence  of  con- 
scious assurance,  by  ihe  in-dwelling  power  of  his  Holy  Spirit. — 
The  gospel  proclaims  that  "God  was  in  Christ  r^iconciling  the 
world  unto  himself;"  that  he  "is  not  willing  any  should  perish, 
but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance;"  that  the  obstacle  which 
hinders  our  acceptance,  is  our  hostility  to  the  divine  government, 
or  our  obstinate  refusal  to  be  reconciled  to  God:  of  course,  when 
we  so  believe  the  truth  as  to  be  brought  to  genuine  repentance 
and  submission  to  Christ's  authority,  the  obstruction  is  removed, 
and  we  are  accepted  of  God  through  the  Redeemer.  We  are 
then  to  believe  that  we  are  accepted,  and  that  the  Almighty  loves 
us  freely,  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  atonement,  because  we  heartily 
repent  of  our  sins  and  consent  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  To  sup- 
pose God  is  not  reconciled  to  a  man,  when  that  man  sincerely  re- 
pents, confesses  his  sins,  and  is  reconciled  to  the  covenant  of 
grace,  is  to  contradict  the  gospel,  and  to  suppose  that  there  is  still 
soine  other  obstacle  in  the  M'ay,beside  the  sinner's  voluntary  hostility. 
It  is  to  suppose  that  some  private  obstruction  exists  in  the  mind  of 
God;  and  therefore  though  the  sinner  exercises  all  the  faith,  repen- 
tance and  submission  in  his  power,  yet  the  Almighty  will  not  be 
reconciled  on  this  account,  but  enjoins  some  other  act  of  faith  as 
the  sole  condition  of  his  accepting  the  sinner,  which  he  reserves 
in  his  own  sovereign  power,  to  give  when  he  pleases,  and  which 
the  sinner  must  passively  receive.  This  notion  accords  very  well 
with  the  divine  sovereignty,  partiality  and  arbitrary  will,  attribu- 
ted to  God  in  some  human  creeds;  but  it  will  never  agree  with 
the  moral  attributes  proclaimed  in  the  gospel;  and  I  fear  hundreds 
of  mourning  penitents  have  been  led  by  it  to  entertain  very  unbe- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  391 

coming  thoughts  of  God,   and  have  bseo  miserably  entangled  iu 
these  remains  of  the  gloomy  system  of  reprobation. 

3.  As  to  the  danger  of  a  man's  deceiving  himself,  I  cannot  help 
thinking  the  charge  justly  falls  upon  the  passive  faiih  of  the  An- 
tinomian.  For  if  "faith  is  the  total  term  of  all  salvation,"  and  if 
this  faith  is  received  in  the  moment  of  justification,  is  it  not  an  ea- 
sy matter  for  a  man,  whose  soul  was  never  thoroughly  humbled  by 
repentance,  but  who  has  felt  some  desire  to  be  converted,  to  take 
a  sudden  impulse  or  feeling  for  this  gift  of  faith,  and  then  to  take 
for  granted  that  he  is  in  a  state  of  justification?  He  is  delivered 
at  once,  and  by  a  very  short  process,  from  the  trouble  of  repen- 
tance; and  having  never  surrendered  to  the  yoke  of  Christ,  his  ap- 
petites and  passions  retain  the  ascendency;  but  notwithstanding 
his  loose  morals,  he  can  remember  when  he  received  faith,  aad 
therefore  he  glories  in  his  full  justification. 

4.  If  it  be  said  that  a  man  upon  this  ground  may  believe  him- 
self into  a  state  of  acceptance  when  he  pleases,  seeing  he  has 
nothing  to  do  but  to  believe  God  is  reconciled  with  him,  the  an- 
swer is  easy.  First,  any  man  who  believes  he  is  in  the  divine  fa- 
vour before  a  gospel -faith  has  led  him  to  genuine  repentance,  be- 
lieves a  falsehood;  and  the  ditference  is  nothing,  whether  he  be- 
lieve this  falsehood,  upon  the  bare  supposition  that  he  had  a 
right  to  believe  it,  or  upon  some  imaginary  or  passionate  feeling 
which  he  took  for  the  gift  of  faith  and  justification.  Secondly, 
when  a  man  has  truly  repented  and  become  reconciled  to  God,  he 
is  accepted,  and  has  a  right  to  claim  the  promise,  or  to  believe 
in  his  Father's  love,  M'hen  he  pleases.  It  is  now  a  truth  that  he 
is  in  favour  with  God,  and  I  hope  a  man  has  a  right  to  believe  the 
truth  at  any  time.  Thirdly,  when  a  man  believes  he  is  accepted, 
before  he  is  so,  there  will  be  no  corresponding  influence  of  the 
Spirit  on  his  mind,  bearing  witness  to  the  justness  and  truth  of 
his  claim,  because  God  will  never  bear  witness  to  a  lie.  Fourthly, 
if  a  man  should  fondly  imagine  he  has  such  a  corresponding  wit- 
ness, when  it  is  not  so  .in  ideality,  the  word  of  God  gives  very 
clear  rules  by  which  he  is  to  examine  himself  whether  he  be  in  the 

faith.  And  the  man  who  thinks  he  can  point  to  the  place  and  time 
when  faith  was  given  him  from  heaven,  is  equally  bound  to  exam- 
ine himself  by  the  same  standard:  for  he  too  may  be  deceived. 
What  then  are  the  rules  by  which  our  faith  is  to  be  tried,  and 
proved  to  be  genuine.''  Will  one  say  "I  know  the  time  and  place 
when  the  Almighty  gave  me  faith,  and  pardoned  all  my  sins.'"' 
Another  may  as  truly  say,  «I  know  not  when   the  Almigty  for- 


393  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

gave  my  sins;  but  I  remember  the  time  and  place,  when  my  spirit 
first  believed  God  was  my  reconciled  Father,  and  upon  whicl^ 
"The  Spirit  of  God  did  bear  witness  with  my  spirit  that  I  w  as  a 
child  of  God."  Another  may  say,  "I  know  not  w  hen  my  sins  were 
forgiven,  or  w  hen  I  first  received  the  clear  evidence  of  it:  but  I 
now  have  a  clear  evidence  that  I  am  accepted  in  the  beloved." 

Without  wasting  time  in  contending  which  of  these  experiences 
is  the  best,  1  must  contend  upon  the  authority  of  God's  word,  that 
they  are  all  to  be  tried  by  the  same  standard.  And  there  is  no  rule 
in  that  standard  which  says,  "the  criterion  by  which  your  experi- 
ence must  be  proved  sound  and  genuine,  is,  that  you  be  able  to  tell 
the  place  and  time  when  you  received  faith,  or  when  you  were 
justitied."  1  never  found  such  a  rule  as  this  in  the  bible,  though  I 
have  learned  it  from  other  sources.  It  has  sometimes  been  insinuat- 
ed or  declared,  tliat  if  a  man  cannot  tell  the  very  time  when  he  re- 
ceived faith  and  was  justified,  he  is  yet  in  the  way  to  hell.  Per- 
sons of  this  opinion,  in  all  likelihood,  repose  great  confidence 
in  this  criterion,  and  glory  in  being  able  to  tell  the  place  and  time 
when  God  gave  them  faith;  "but  God  forbid  that  I  should  glory," 
says  the  apostle,  "save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
whom  the  world  is  crucified,  unto  me,  and  I  unto  the  world."  Gal. 
vi.  14.  "Does  not  talking  about  a  justified  or  sanctified  state  tend  to 
mislead  men.^"  says  Mr.  Wesley:  "Does  it  not  naturally  lead  them 
to  trust  in  what  was  done  in  one  moment?  Whereas  we  are  every 
moment  pleasing  or  displeasing  to  God  according  to  our  works: 
according  to  the  whole  of  our  present  inward  tempers  and  out- 
ward behaviour." 

The  apostle  John,  in  his  first  epistle,  fifth  chapter,  lays  down 
the  rules  by  which  we  are  to  examine  ourselves  whether  we  be  in 
the  [christian]  faith.  1.  "Faith  worketh  by  love.  Whosoever  be- 
lieveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  born  of  God:  and  every  one  that 
loveth  him  that  begat,  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of 
him."  1  John  v.  1.  Let  us  examine  whether  we  have  the  "genu- 
ine mark  of  love,"  or  whether  our  faith  worketh  by  bigotry  and 
malice.  Let  us  not  presume  that  we  love  God,  while  we  indulge 
angry  and  malevolent  aftections  against  his  creatures. 

3.  "This  faith,  working  by  love,  leads  to  gospel  obedience. 
For  this  is  is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  commandments; 
and  his  commandments  are  not  grievous."  Verse  3.  The  Apostle 
James  urges  this  criterion  against  the  Antinomians  of  his  time: 
"Thou  believest  that  there  is  one  God;  thou  doest  well:  the  devils 
also  believe,  and  tremble.  But  wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man,  that 
faith  without  works  is  dead?"  James  ii.  19,  20. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  393 

3.  The  faith  of  a  christian  produces  victory.  <'For  whatsoever 
is  born  of  God  overcometh  the  uorld:  and  this  is  the  victory  that 
overcometh  the  world,  even  our  faith.  Who  is  he  that  overcom- 
eth the  w"brld,  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 
God.?"  Verse  4,  5. 

4.  He  that  believeth  with  this  loving,  working.and  victorious  faith, 
hath  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  "he  that  believeth  on  the 
Sou  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  himself."  Verse  10. 

These  are  the  criterions  God  has  directed  us  to  use,  when  we 
examine  ourselves  whether  we  be  in  the  faith;  and  any  man  whose 
faith  will  bear  this  test,  is  a  genuine  christian,  loved  and  approv- 
ed of  God,  w  hatever  might  have  been  the  particular  mode  of  his 
conversion.  ♦ 

He  whose  faith  worketh  by  a  flaming,  fiery  zeal,  or  bigoted  fu- 
ry; he  who  is  destitute  of  the  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ; 
and  who  is  not  only  loose  and  irregular  in  his  moral  conduct,  but 
proud,  selfish,  and  resentful  in  his  disposition,  is  no  genuine  chris- 
tian, however  he  may  profess  to  have  the  witness  in  himself,  and 
be  able  to  tell  the  day  when  he  received  faith  and  justification. 
God  directs  us  to  judge  of  our  state,  not  by  one  of  those  rules  alone, 
but  by  the  whole  of  them  in  conjunction;  and  in  vain  may  we  pre- 
sume to  separate  "the  witness  of  the  spirit,  from  the  fruits  of  right- 
eousness which  are  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ." 


SECTION  m. 

Whether  faith  depends  upon  the  will. 

Is  not  belief  an  involuntary  act  necessarily  following  the  degree 
of  evidence  perceived?  And  has  a  man  power  to  believe  when  he 
pleases? 

To  answer  the  first  question  we  may  observe: 

1.  In  all  cases  where  the  evidence  is  irresistible,  the  belief  or 
decision  of  the  judgment  is  involuntary,  and  follows  of  necessity, 
tvhen  the  evidence  is  fully  before  the  mind.  That  I  now  exist,  and 
am  now  thinking  and  writing,  I  believe  of  necessity,  because  the 
evidence  is  irresistible:  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  believe  the  con- 
trary. When  a  man  feels  acute  pain,  his  feeling  or  consciousness 


394c  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

is  irresistible,  and  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  believe  that  lie  feels 
no  pain,  when  he  is  conscious  that  he  does.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  many  other  truths.     But, 

^.  To  say  all  belief  is  involuntary,  is  to  say  all  evidence  is 
alike  irresistible,  and  of  course  that  all  we  hear  or  read  concern- 
ing the  comparative  degrees  of  evidence,  is  founded  in  absurdity; 
for  it  is  surely  absurd  to  talk  of  there  being  degrees  in  absolute 
necessity.  The  same  may  be  said  concerning  the  degrees  of  be- 
lieving: if  all  my  belief  is  absolutely  necessary,  no  one  act  of  belief 
can  be  stronger  or  more  firm  than  another,  unless  it  be  possible 
for  something  to  be  more  firm  than  necessity.  All  men  of  reflection 
will  acknowledge,  for  example,  that  we  have  probable  evidence  to 
believe  the  other  planets  ai'e  inhabited  by  living  creatures;  but 
will  anv  one  say  he  is  under  the  same  necessity  to  believe  there 
are  living  creatures  in  the  moon  or  the  planet  Jujnter,  that  he  is 
under  to  believe  there  are  living  creatures  upon  this  €tfirth.? 

3.  Mr.  Hume's  maxim  is  acknowledged  to  be  true,  by  Deists, 
Christians,  Turks  and  Jews:  "A  wise  man  will  proportion  his  be- 
lief to  the  evidence."  But  this  surely  supposes  belief  to  be  in  our 
power:  for  if  all  evidence  produces  belief  of  necessity,  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  any  man  not  to  proportion  his  belief  to  the  evidence;  and  iu 
this  respect  there  can  be  no  distinction  between  a  wise  man  and  a 
fool:  all  are  equally  wise,  all  equally  conform  their  belief  to  the 
evidence,  and  that  of  necessity. 

4.  If  belief  be  not  in  our  power,  and  can  in  no  case  depend  up- 
on our  will,  all  complaints  of  deists  and  philosophers  concerning 
the  credulity  of  mankind,  and  their  proneness  to  be  too  dogmatical 
in  their  belief,  is  truly  ridiculous:  for  why  complain  if  they  al- 
ways proportion  their  belief  to  the  evidence,  which  the  objection 
supposes  they  must  do  of  necessity.^ 

5.  All  our  complaints  against  the  incredulity  or  unbelief  of  in- 
fidels are  equally  absurd,  for  the  same  reason.  They  do  not  be- 
lieve in  Christianity;  but  the  objection  says  they  believe  every 
thing  for  which  they  have  evidence,  and  cannot  do  otherwise; 
therefore  the  reason  why  they  believe  not,  is  that  they  never  had 
any  evidence:  consequently,  if  my  objector  blame  them  for  their 
unbelief,  he  wishes  them  to  believe  without  evidence,  and  at  the 
same  time,  maintains  that  it  is  impossible! 

6.  If  all  belief  is  necessarily  produced  according  to  the  evi- 
dence, then  it  is  impossible  for  a  man  either  to  resist  evidence,  or 
to  believe  without  evidence.  Consequently,  no  man  in  the  world 
ever  deceived  himself,  or  believed  a  falsehood,  otherwise  you  say 
a  man  is  led  into  a  falsehood  by  believing  according  to  evidence. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  395 

If  so,  evidence  not  only  impels  belief,  but  also  supports  delusion; 
and  therefore  truth  and  falsehood  are  both  supported  alike,  and  no 
man  ever  believed  a  falsehood,  without  being  led  into  it  by  such  a 
force  of  evidence  as  was  perfectly  irresistible. 

7.  Every  man  of  good  character,  who  gives  his  testimony  con- 
cerning matters  ef  fact,  claims  a  right  to  be  believed:  if  his  neigh- 
bours and  children  refuse  to  credit  any  thing  he  says,  and  to  be- 
Ifeve  he  is  a  liar,  he  feels  himself  injured,  and  blames  them  for 
discrediting  his  testimony.  But  according  to  the  hypothesis  here 
opposed,  he  ought  not  to  blame  them  at  all;  because  if  this  theo- 
ry be  true,  the  reason  why  they  discredit  his  word  is,  that  they 
have  irresistible  evidence  to  believe  him  a  liar. 

8.  When  our  Lord  first  appeared  to  his  disciples  after  his  re- 
surrection, Thomas  was  not  among  them:  "The  other  disciples 
therefore  said  unto  him,  we  have  seen  the  Lord.  Thomas  knew 
their  character,  and  could  not  deny  that  their  united  testimony- 
was  a  just  ground  of  belief:  yet  it  seems  he  had  resolved  not  to  be- 
lieve upon  any  other  kind  or  degree  of  evidence  than  that  of  sight 
and  feeling.  "Except  1  shall  see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the 
nails,  and  put  my  fingers  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my 
hand  into  his  side,  1  will  not  believe.*'  John  xx.  25.  Was  not 
Thomas  here  conscious  that  it  depended  upon  his  will,  whether 
he  would  believe  upon  this  evideuc3,  or  withhold  assent  till  he 
should  obtain  greater.^  That  he  might  have  believed  when  he  re- 
fused to  do  so,  and  that  it  would  have  been  truly  virtuous  for  him 
to  have  given  credit  to  the  testimony  of  his  brethren,  without  in- 
dulging such  obstinate  scepticism,  is  evident  from  our  Lord's  reply: 
"Jesus  saith  unto  hira,  Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou 
hast  believed:  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have 
believed."  Verse  29. 

9.  Lastly,  We  may  appeal  to  the  consciousness  of  every  living 
man,  if  the  act  of  believing  be  not  often  as  voluntary  as  any  other 
action  of  his  soul.  He  can  examine  evidence,  or  refuse  to  exa- 
mine it.  He  can  resist  his  prejudices  and  passions,  or  he  can  sub- 
mil  to  them.  He  can  yield  to  the  influence  of  imagination,  or  he 
can  oppose  its  influence.  And  it  is  in  a  great  degree,  at  his 
option,  whether  his  opinions  be  formed  according  to  the  model  of 
some  favourite  leader,  the  creed  of  his  party,  or  by  a  patient  and 
eandid  examination  of  evidence. 

The  objection  supposes  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  prejudice, 
obstinacy,  or  a  disposition  to  reject  evidence,  in  the  world.  Or  at 
least,  if  there  be  such  things,  they  can  have  no  eftect;  for  however 


396  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

bigoted  and  obstinate  a  man  may  be,  whenever  he  hears  a  good 
argument  advanced  by  his  adversary,  he  is  supposed  to  yiehl  to  its 
evidence  as  necessarily  as  matter  gravitates  lo  the  centre. 

This  notion  of  faith  is  supported  by  deists,  as  well  as  by  predes- 
tinarian  divines.  Palmer  advances  it  in  his  "Principles  of  Na- 
ture," page  62.  "Faith,"  says  he,  "is  the  assent  of  the  mind  to 
the  truth  of  a  proposition  supported  by  evidence.  If  the  evidence 
adduced  is  sufficient  to  convince  the  mind,  credence  is  theneccssa- 
ry  result — if  the  evidence  be  insufficient,  belief  becomes  impossi- 
ble. In  religion,  therefore,  or  in  any  other  of  the  concerns  of  life, 
if  the  mind  discerns  tliat  quantum  of  evidence  necessary  to  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  any  proposition,  it  will  yield  to  the  force  and  effect 
of  the  proofs  which  are  produced;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  intel- 
ligence of  man  does  not  discern  the  necessary  influence  of  such 
evidence,  infidelity  will  be  the  natural  and  unavoidable  result. — 
Why  then  is  the  principle  of  faith  considered  as  a  virtue.^  When 
therefore,  the  christian  religion  represents  faith  as  being  merito- 
rious, it  betrays  an  ignorance  of  nature,  and  becomes  censurable 
by  its  deviation  from  the  primary  and  essential  arrangements.  Yet 
in  this  holy  book,  we  are  told,  that  "he  that  believeth  not,  shall 
be  damned." 

Strange,  that  Mr.  Palmer,  after  advancing  this  sentiment,  which 
he  appears  to  believe  with  great  assurance,  should  complain  so 
much  of  the  credulous  vulgar,  who  tamely  give  up  their  reason, 
and  believe  whatever  priests  are  pleased  to  propose  to  their  cre- 
dence. He  cannot  complain  of  any  of  us,  for  believing  in  the 
christian  religion;  for  he  says,  "if  the  evidence  adduced  is  suffi- 
cient to  convince  the  mind,  credence  is  the  necessary  result — if  the 
evidence  be  insufficient,  belief  becomes  impossible."  Therefore 
the  reason  we  believe  the  truth  of  Christianity  is,  that  "the  evi- 
dence adduced  is  sufficient;"  for  had  it  been  "insufficient,"  belief 
would  have  been  "impossible."  And  w  by  complain  of  priests  for 
deceitfully  taking  advantage  of  the  prejudices  and  passions  of  the 
people,  if  "belief  becomes  impossible"  upon  any  ground  but  that 
of  "sufficient  evidence.^"  If  this  be  so,  the  only  reason  why  priests 
or  philosophers,  atheists  or  fanatics,  have  been  believed  in  the 
contradictory  opinions  they  have  advanced,  is,  that  they  all  "ad- 
duced sufficient  evidence,"  and  therefore,  "credence  was  the  ne- 
cessary result:"  for  had  it  been  otherwise,  "belief"  would  have 
"become  impossible."  Thus,  Mr.  Palmer,  to  excuse  his  own  un- 
belief, excuses  all  fanatics,  hypocrites  and  bigots  in  the  world,  and 
maintains  that  they  regulate  their  belief  by  evidence,  as  aniformlf 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  395^ 

as  the  most  candid  person  in  existence.  And  yet  he  says  in 
another  place,  "if  you  can  once  persuade  a  man,  that  he  is  total- 
ly ignorant  of  the  subject  on  which  you  are  about  to  discourse,  you 
can  make  him  believe  any  thing."  Page  27. 

The  truth  is,  as  universal  experience  shows,  that  the  imagina- 
tion, the  passions  and  prejudices  of  men,  when  yielded  to,  have  an 
influence  upon  belief;  and  it  is  in  a  considerable  degree  optional 
with  every  man,  whether  his  faith  shall  be  regulated  by  evidence, 
or  by  some  other  standard. 

As  to  the  second  question,  can  a  man  believe  when  he  pleases? 
it  needs  but  a  short  answer: 

First,  It  will  be  readily  granted,  I  suppose,  that  a  man,  while 
awake,  and  in  his  right  mind,  is  able  to  believe  some  truths,  or  ex- 
ercise his  mind  in  some  acts  of  believing,  when  he  pleases. 

Secondly,  As  to  genuine  gospel-faith,  which  produces  true  re- 
pentance and  submission  to  God,  a  man  is  dependant  on  the  divine 
influence,  which  enlightens  the  eyes  of  his  understanding,  but 
which  is  not  irresistible,  and  does  not  destroy  his  agency.  If 
there  be  any  time  in  which  he  cannot  exercise  this  faith,  in  any 
degree,  the  fault  is  in  himself,  and  not  in  God.  He  may  have 
grieved  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  incapacitated  himself  to  ex- 
ercise any  lively  or  influential  act  of  faith  for  the  present;  but  ex- 
cepting such  particular  cases,  I  presume  he  may  exercise  some 
degree  of  faith  at  any  time.  If  it  were  asked,  can  a  man  exercise 
his  reason  when  he  pleases.''  I  think  the  proper  answer  would  be 
that  in  general  he  can;  but  he  may  incapacitate  himself  by  drunk- 
enness, or  otherwise,  and  for  the  time  being,  may  not  have  it  in  his 
power  to  think  or  act  like  a  reasonable  creature.  So  a  man  may 
injure  his  faculties,  grieve  the  spirit,  and  for  the  time  being,  feel 
himself  unable  to  get  forward  in  the  ways  of  God;  but  in  general, 
a  sincere  soul  may  believe  in  some  degree,  or  use  the  means  of 
faith,  when  he  pleases. 

The  word  of  God  assures  us  that  faith  cometh  by  hearing;  and 
I  hope  it  will  be  admitted  that  a  man  may  hear  or  read  the  word,  by 
which  faith  cometh,  whenhe  pleases.  A  man  may  think  when  he 
pleases;  and  though  he  may  feel  it  impossible  for  him  now  to  rise, 
as  it  were,  to  the  third  heaven,  and  commune  with  God,  yet  he  can 
meditate  a  little  upon  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  on  Mount  Calvary, 
and  upon  the  end  for  which  he  died  and  rose  again  from  the  dead. 
These  serious  reflections  will  peradventure  have  a  greater  ten- 
dency to  enkindle  the  spark  of  faith  within  liim,  than  some  of  his 
most  painful  struggles  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above. 
3£ 


aat*  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

Thirdly,  Whether  a  man  can  believe  that  he  is  accepted  of 
God,  through  Christ,  when  he  pleases,  or  not,  it  is  very  evident 
the  man  who  believes  it  before  he  has  truly  repented,  whether 
upon  the  ground  of  some  feeling  which  he  took  for  justification,  or 
otherwise,  believes  a /a^se/iooc/.  Ifthisbethe  faith  alluded  to  in 
the  inquiry,  the  answer  is,  that  no  man  can,  at  any  time,  believe 
it  as  a  truth,  who  has  not  fully  surrendered  to  Christ;  and  if  he 
should  believe  it  when  it  is  not  true,  this  surely  is  not  gospel-faith. 
But  he  who  has  so  repented  as  to  become  reconciled  to  God,  is 
accepted  in  the  beloved,  and  God  is  reconciled  to  him.  He  new 
has  a  right  to  believe  it,  at  any  time,  because  every  man  has  a 
right  to  believe  the  truth;  and  I  apprehend  nothing  hinders  him 
from  having  the  power  also,  except  it  be  some  voluntary  declension 
in  heart,  or  some  Antinomian  delusion.  But  hundreds,  it  may  be 
said,  know  by  experience  that  a  man  cannot  believe  when  he 
pleases;  for  they  have  often  laboured  to  believe,  and  found  it  as 
impossible  as  for  them  to  make  a  world;  and  afterwards,  when 
they  were  not  thus  striving,  faith  was  given  them  at  a  time  alto- 
gether unexpected.     Answer: 

What  were  they  labouring  to  believe.^  Were  they  striving  t© 
embrace  that  truth  which  it  was  then  their  duty  to  believe.**  And 
did  they  labour  to  do  their  duty,  and  at  the  same  time  find  it  im- 
possible for  them  to  do  it.**  Then  it  seems  a  man's  duty  is,  to  do 
that  which  is  impossible.  Faith  cometh  by  hearing.  Did  they  la- 
hour  to  hear  the  word  of  God,  and  find  it  impossible?  Did  they 
Jabour  to  hear  with  attention,  candor,  self-examination,  humility 
and  earnest  prayer.^  And  is  it  true,  that  all  these  things  were  com- 
pletely out  of  their  power?  Were  they  striving  to  meditate  upon 
the  plan  of  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  understand  the  di- 
vine nature,  to  treasure  up  the  gospel  promises  in  their  memory, 
to  weaken  their  attachments  to  the  worldy  and  to  exercise  their 
thoughts  on  heavenly  things?  And  was  it  absolutely  impossible 
for  them  to  do  any  of  these  things?  If  it  was  not,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  in  doing  them,  they  were  attending  to  the  very  matters 
which  the  word  of  God  enjoins  as  conditions  of  our  acceptance; 
faith  is  the  ground  of  all  these  exertions,  and  when  it  is  brought 
into  this  proper  exercise,  according  to  the  power  we  have,  more 
faith  (or  power  to  believe)  will  come  through  these  means,  seeing 
"  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God." 

If  the  man  was  then  exercising  his  faith  in  the  very  way  the 
word  of  God  directs,  how  can  it  be  said  with  truth  that  he  labouv- 
p.d  to  believe  and  found  it  impossible? 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  899 

But  I  suppose  the  meaning  of  the  objection  is,  that  he  tried 
to  believe  himself  into  a  state  of  unutterable  joy,  like  that  of  Paul 
when  he  was  carried  up  into  the  third  heaven;  and  that  he  found 
this  to  be  impossible.  And  because  the  penitent  cannot  rise  to  the 
state  of  a  ftither  in  Christ  in  a  moment,  it  is  concluded  that  he 
has  no  power  to  believe:  as  if  nothing  was  to  be  called /ai^/t,  but 
the  full  assurance  of  our  spiritual  union  with  God,  produced  by 
the  in-dwelling  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

We  will  suppose  a  little  child  is  just  now  beginning  to  Malk, 
and  that  a  person  asks  the  question,  can  this  child  become  a  man 
M'hen  he  pleases?  Is  he  able  to  become  a  man  at  any  time?  The 
obvious  answer  is,  that  it  is  impossible.  Then,  says  he,  you  have 
granted  all  I  contend  for;  namely,  that  the  child  can  do  nothing, 
but  must  passively  wait  till  it  shall  please  God  to  give  it  man- 
hood. 

This  is  a  very  sophistical  conclusion,  because,  thongh  a  child 
cannot  become  a  man  when  he  pleases,  yet  he  can  use  that  exercise 
and  those  means,  which  are  within  his  power,  and  which  naturally 
tend  to  manhood.  In  like  manner  a  penitent  has  power  to  exercise 
faith  in  some  degree;  and  one  degree,  or  act  of  believing,  will 
make  way  for  another.  For  him  to  neglect  that  exercise  which  is 
Avithin  his  power,  and  vainly  attempt  to  become  an  established  be- 
liever in  a  moment,  without  taking  all  the  intervening  steps,  is  like 
a  man  standing  at  the  foot  of  a  ladder,  labouring  to  reach  the  mid- 
dle or  the  top  of  it  at  one  step.  Can  this  man  ascend  to  the  top  of 
the  ladder  in  a  moment?  It  is  impossible.  And  while  he  labours 
to  do  so,  he  is  like  a  man  beating  the  air,  and  will  continue  on  the 
ground,  till  he  shall  learn  to  take  the  intervening  steps,  and  thu^ 
regularly  progress  from  one  stage  to  another. 

How  many  mourning  souls  have  thought  they  had  the  indubitable 
proof  of  experience  that  they  could  do  nothing,  when  the  fact  was, 
they  were  neglecting  the  truths  within  their  reach,  to  grasp  at  the 
fulness  of  christian  salvation,  without  taking  the  proper  steps  to  at- 
tain it?  The  penitent,  after  labouring  hard  to  receive  faith,  or  to  bring 
Christ  down  from  above,  sits  down  discouraged,  and  concludes  he 
can  do  nothing.  But  has  not  his  faith  already  influenced  him  to 
"humble  himself  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God?"  Has  it  not  led 
him  to  forsake  his  evil  way,  to  confess  his  sins,  repent  of  them,  and 
submit  that  "the  man  Christ  Jesus  should  reign  over  him?"  And 
is  all  this  doing  nothing?  As  sure  as  the  word  of  our  God  shall 
stand  forever,  it  is  doing  the  very  things  which  are  enjoined  as  the 
terms  of  our  acceptance  or  justification. 


400  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

But  «we  have  received  it  as  a  maxim,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "that 
a  mauis  to  do  nothing  in  order  to  justification.  Nothing  can  be 
more  false:  for  he  that  comes  to  God  must  'cease  to  do  evil,  and 
learn  to  do  well;'  he  that  repents  must  'do  works  meet  for  repen- 
tance:' And  if  this  is  not  in  order  to  find  favour,  what  does  he  do 
them  for?"  God  commands  him  to  do  them,  and  that  in  order  to 
find.favour,  promising  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  all  who  re- 
pent and  confess  their  sins  shall  find  mercy. 

And  has  not  the  mourner  power  to  examine  himself,  to  know 
whether  he  has  made  a  full  surrender?  Has  he  not  power  to  search 
the  scriptures,  to  know  what  are  the  gospel  terms  of  reconciliation? 
Has  he  not  power  to  meditate  upon  the  evidence  God  has  given 
of  his  love  to  man?  and  is  not  attention  to  evidence  the  thing  which 
produces  faith?  Is  he  wishing  to  believe  without  evidence?  Or  does 
he  expect  God  requires  him  to  found  his  faith  on  some  new  evi- 
dence not  yet  given,  instead  of  requiring  him  to  pay  proper  atten- 
tion to  the  evidence  he  has?  "It  is  accepted  according  to  that  a  man 
hath,  not  according  to  that  he  hath  not." 

By  self-examination,  by  comparing  the  present  statex)f  his  mind, 
of  which  he  is  conscious,  m  ith  the  marks  and  fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance, which  he  will  find  stated  in  the  scriptures;  and  by  a 
careful  attention  to  the  divine  influence  on  his  mind,  a  penitent 
may  have  sufficient  evidence  of  the  reality  of  his  surrender  to  the 
covenant  of  grace.  Upon  this  evidence,  together  with  that  con- 
tained in  the  promises  in  general,  he  has  a  right  to  claim  God  as 
his  gracious  Father,  reconciled  to  him  through  the  blood  of  the 
everlasting  covenant.  He  has  no  right  to  expect  any  higher  evi- 
dence, while  he  refuses  to  pay  proper  attention  to  this:  and  liir  a 
penitent  to  refuse  to  believe  in  his  Father's  present  reconciling 
love, until  he  shall  be  compelled  (o  do  it,  by  an  overpowering  reve- 
lation from  heaven,  is  to  act  like  Thomas,  who  declared  "except 
I  shall  see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my  hand 
into  his  side,  I  will  not  believe."  God  may  condescend  to  the  weak- 
ness of  some,  as  he  did  to  the  weakness  of  Thomas;  and  may  give 
them  an  extraordinary  manifestation  to  help  their  unbelief;  but  as 
Jesus  said  "blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  be- 
lieved;" so  I  am  persuaded  God  is  well  pleased  to  see  a  sincere 
penitent  believe  in  his  Fatherly  goodness,  upon  the  general  evi- 
dence of  the  gospel,  without  waiting  to  "see  the  heavens  opened, 
and  the  Son  of  man  standing  on  the  right  of  God,"  Such  a  sincere 
soul,  whose  faith  thus  glorifies  God,  by  crediting  the  record  he 
has  given  of  his  Son,  without  resolving  (like  Paine)  to  disbelieve 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  40i 

the  evidence  contained  in  the  gospel,  till  a  new  revelation  shall  be 
given  to  continn  the  truth  of  the  old;  shall  be  rewarded  with  a 
peaceful  answer,  and  shall  know  by  happy  experience,  that  "bless- 
ed are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed." 

A  man  of  an  honest  mind,  who  thus  believes  he  is  accepted  in 
the  beloved,  will  be  careful  to  examine  the  fruits  of  his  faith,  to 
know  whether  it  will  bear  the  gospel  test.  Does  it  work  by  love? 
Does  he  find  that  every  successive  act  of  this  faith  draws  him  into 
closer  communion  with  God?  Does  it  increase  his  hatred  of  sin, 
and  his  pleasure  in  the  practice  of  justice,  mercy  and  truth?  Does 
it  lead  him  to  set  his  attection  on  things  above,  not  on  things  on 
the  earth?  and  to  "endure  hardness  as  a  good  soldier  of  Jesus 
Christ?"  By  these  marks  and  evidences  he  may  be  settled  in  a 
sure  trust  and  confidence,  that  he  is  a  child  of  God  by  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ:  and  no  soul  that  thus  conforms  himself  to  the  truth 
of  the  gospel,  will  ever  be  deceived. 

As  to  the  argument  founded  on  experience,  that  many  have  re- 
ceived faith  like  lightening  from  heaven,  when  they  were  not 
looking  for  it;  we  may  observe, 

1.  Great  allowance  is  to  be  made  for  those  who  have  been  en- 
tangled in  the  theories  of  Antinomiauism.  They  have  laboured 
hard  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above,  and  God  condescended  at 
length  to  their  weakness  and  ignorance  of  the  way  of  rigteousness, 
and  helped  them  out  of  the  slough  of  despond,  by  an  extraordina- 
ry display  of  his  enlightening  and  drawing  power:  upon  this  they 
believed,  and  went  on  their  way  rejoicing.  "Thomas,  because  thou 
hast  seen,  thou  hast  believed:  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen, 
and  yet  have  believed." 

2.  The  reason  why  they  laboured  so  hard  to  believe  and  could 
not,  may  have  been,  that  they  thought  faith  was  away  up  in  hea- 
ven, and  were  labouring  to  bring  it  down:  but  finding  their  labour 
vain,  they  gave  over  the  struggle,  and  to  their  astonishment,  in  a 
very  little  while  after,  they  were  unexpectedly  relieved,  and  ena- 
bled to  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  Upon  this  they  conclude, 
that  while  they  sought  for  faith  they  could  not  find  it:  but  after 
they  gave  over  seeking,  faith  was  given  them  from  above.  But 
the  truth  of  the  case  may  be,  that  after  they  gave  over  the  fruit- 
less labour  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above,  which  was  an  exer- 
cise of  unbelief, i\vt^  found  the  word  was  nigh  them,  and  believed  it, 
npon  which  their  Redeemer  answered,  "according  to  thy  faith  so 
be  it  unto  thee." 


402  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

3.  An  appeal  to  experience,  in  support  of  any  doctrine,  is  not  to 
be  received  unless  it  accord  with  the  oracles  of  God.  This  appeal 
was  made  in  Mr.  Wesley's  time:  "God  does  iu  fact  justify  those 
who  by  their  own  confession  neither  feared  him,  nor  wrought 
righteousness."  That  is,  as  I  understand  it,  that  faith  was  unex- 
pectedly given,  before  they  repented,  or  did  works  meet  for  repen- 
tance. This  contradicts  the  scripture,  and  such  an  Antinomian 
faith  and  justification,  ought  to  be  examined  with  a  jealous  eye. 
Such  a  person  may  glory  in  his  conversion  being  very  instantane- 
ous, and  that  faith  was  given  in  a  wonderful  manner;  but  what  is 
his  faith  now?  Do  we  not  need  as  strong  faith  now  as  in  the  hour 
of  our  justification.^ 


SECTION  IV. 

Of  the  right  exercise  of  the  understanding. 

The  excellency  of  faith  consists  in  its  subserviency  to  the  prac- 
tice of  piety,  or  evangelical  righteousness.  Gospel-faith  being  a 
rigorous  principle  of  action  worketh  by  love;  and  God's  believing 
people  are  "a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works." 

By  good  works,  in  the  gospel  sense  of  the  phrase,  is  to  be  un- 
derstood "the  whole  of  our  inward  tempers  and  outward  beha- 
viour regulated  by  grace."  The  term  implies  the  right  exercise  of 
all  our  fticulties,  intellectual,  moral  and  corporeal.  It  includes  the 
proper  regulation  and  government  of  our  affections,  passions  and 
appetites;  the  right  ordering  of  our  thoughts  and  conversation;  the 
dedication  of  our  property  to  the  cause  of  piety  and  benevolence; 
and  the  temperate  use  of  all  worldly  enjoyments. 

As  we  come  now  to  consider  the  practical  part  of  religion,  to 
which  all  other  parts  ought  to  be  made  subservient,  and  without 
which  they  will  avail  nothing  to  our  salvation;  let  us  first  consi- 
der the  right  exercise  of  the  understanding,  as  the  foremost  of  all 
christian  duties.  This  comes  now  in  order,  because  as  the  prac- 
tice of  our  duty  cannot  go  before  our  knowledge  of  it,  the  right 
conduct  of  the  understanding  is  the  first  of  all  moral  obligations. 
We  might  as  well  suppose  a  man  can  become  an  accomplished  ar- 
tist without  using  his  eyes,  as  to  suppose  he  can  become  a  perfect 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  4Q3 

christiaD,  in  the  habitual  neglect  of  his  reflecting  powers.  How 
could  we  more  effectually  degrade  the  important  and  dignified  re- 
ligion of  our  heavenly  Redeemer,  than  by  presUfbiug  to  expect  we 
shall  become  proficients  in  it,  without  diligent  and  habitual  think- 
ing? Who  can  rightly  appreciate  the  infinite  advantages  of  revela- 
tion, or  consequently  return  suitable  and  becoming  gratitude  to  its 
eternal  Author,  without  labouring  to  become  acquainted  with  its 
essential  principles?  And  who  can  become  properly  acquainted 
with  them,  without  the  uniform  attention  of  his  mind,  and  the  vi- 
gilant exercise  of  his  understanding? 

It  is  true,  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  especially  the  practical 
parts  of  it,  are  very  plain,  and  adapted  to  the  weakest  capacity; 
but  they  are  made  plain,  not  to  afford  any  apology  for  indolence, 
but  for  the  encouragement  of  the  diligent  soul,  who  by  the  prac- 
tice of  regular  and  serious  thinking,  shall  acquire  a  suflicient 
knowledge  of  God,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  hath  sent,  the 
weakness  of  his  natural  capacity  notwithstanding. 

The  first  operation  necessary  to  the  enlargement  of  knowledge, 
is  that  o{ attention.  By  this  is  meant  that  act  of  the  soul  by  which 
its  roving  thoughts  are  arrested  in  their  desultory  progress,  and  by 
which  the  thinking  power  is  confined  to  a  single  object,  in  order 
to  acquire  a  more  adequate  knowledge  of  its  nature  and  proper- 
ties. This  cannot  be  done  without  a  voluntary  exertion,  ofwhich 
we  are  conscious;  this  exertion,  for  the  most  part,  is  laborious;  and 
men  in  general  have  such  an  aversion  to  labour,  that  they  choose 
rather  to  let  their  thoughts  run  on  in  their  irregular  course,  as  ima- 
gination or  passion  shall  dictate,  than  to  confine  them  to  any 
useful  subject:  hence  thousands  spend  the  whole  course  of  their 
lives  with  very  little  regular  thinking.  And  hence  also  they  re- 
mainso  strangely  indifferent  to  their  eternal  welfare.  The  law  has 
no  terrors,  the  gospel  no  charms,  for  them.  The  great  motives  de- 
rived from  eternity,  from  heaven  and  from  hell,  are  no  motives  to 
them.  And  why?  Because  they  will  not  think.  The  clear  and  iu- 
contestible  arguments,  which  evince  their  deep  obligations  of  gra- 
titude and  devotion  to  the  great  God  of  heaven,  produce  no  convic- 
tion, or  none  that  is  effectual,  in  their  ignorant  and  thoughtless 
minds.  The  heavens  and  the  earth  alike  expostulate  in  vain;  pa- 
thetic intreaties,  and  terrific  warnings,  are  alike  unavailing;  reason 
.and  revelation  alike  disregarded;  and  even  tiie  moving  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  resisted  and  despised.  And  whence  is  it 
that  nothing  in  heaven,  earth,  or  hell,  can  move  these  hardened 
and  indifferent  creatures  to  repentance?     They  will  not  think. 


404  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

«'The  ox  knoweth  his  owner,  and  the  ass  his  master's  crib;  bnt 
Israel  doth  not  know:  my  people  do  not  cowsirfer." 

The  irregularity,  lukewarmness,  and  instability  of  professing 
christians,  may  often  be  traced  to  the  same  source.  They  halt  be- 
tween religion  and  the  world,  and  vainly  attempt  to  serve  two 
masters.  In  the  day  of  prosperity,  theij  receive  the  ivord  with  joy; 
but  when  calamity  and  trials  approach,  immediately  they  are  of- 
fended or  discouraged,  and  are  not  willing  to  retain  religion  at  so 
high  a  price.  One  while  they  seem  transported  with  desire  and 
resolution  to  take  the  kingdom  by  violence;  but  suddenly  we  see 
the  form  of  their  visage  changed,  their  souls  move  heavily  like 
Pharaoh's  chariot  wheels,  and  they  are  at  the  point  of  giving  up 
their  religion  till  a  more  convenient  season.  How  is  all  this  to  be 
accounted  for.'^  Such  persons  undervalue  things  heavenly  and  di- 
vine, and  overvalue  things  temporal  and  momentary:  hence  worldly 
things,  to  such  minds,  furnish  very  strong,  and  heavenly  things 
very  feeble  motives,  to  influence  their  actions.  The  reason  is,  that 
they  are  ignorant  of  the  value  of  heavenly  things,  and  of  theraMi- 
ty  of  earthly  things.  And  why  are  they  thus  ignorant?  Because 
they  will  not  think. 

They  have  taken  for  granted,  and  perhaps  have  often  heard  it 
hinted  from  the  pulpet,  that  religion  prospers  most  among  ignor- 
ant and  uniformed  people;  that  all  attempts  to  improve  our  know- 
ledge are  dangerous,  and  only  lead  to  a  head-religion;  that  a  studi- 
ous habit  naturally  makes  a  man  speculative,  philosophical^  and 
then  deistical:  and  consequently  that  there  is  no  necessity  of  much 
reading  or  thinking;  but  if  a  person  can  pray,  and  talk  about  reli- 
gion, and  feel  well,  it  is  altogether  sufficient.  ['"These  ought  ye  to 
have  done,  and  not  to  leave  the  other  undone."]  Such  persons  of 
course  irnxke  feeling  the  standard  of  religion.  Being  ignorant  of 
the  duties  arising  from  their  various  relations  in  life,  there  is  of- 
ten  a  deSeiency  in  their  moral  conduct;  and  they  dishonour  the 
cause  of  their  Redeemer  by  frequent  irregularities,  which  will  be 
noticed  by  others,  though  the  immorality  of  them  is  unobserved  by 
themselves,  through  a  most  culpable  inattention  and  inexcusable 
want  of  thought.  Hence  their  conscience  does  not  condemn  them, 
and  the  singing  of  a  lively  tune  will  excite  their  passionate  feel' 
ings  into  transports  as  before;  but  they  ought  to  consider,  that  ig- 
norance affords  no  apology,  when  that  ignorance  arises  from  a 
voluntary  neglect  of  the  proper  means  of  knowledge;  and  that  a 
sacred  regard  to  duty,  is  of  far  higher  price  in  the  sight. of  God, 
than  any /ee/ino;-s  that  can  be  made  to  accord  with  deficiency  in 
moral  conduct. 


PLAN  OP  SALVATION.  403 

That  peraicious  prejudice  against  intellectual  impi'ovement, 
which  is  too  often  cherished,  is  more  dangerous  in  its  tendency 
than  thousands  are  aware  of.  I  fear  it  leads  many  to  glory  in  their 
ignorance,  and  to  look  with  suspicion  or  animosity  upon  eVery  at- 
tempt to  improve  the  mind,  and  to  enlarge  our  knowledge  ot'God 
and  of  his  works.  Conftning  the  attention  entirely  to  feeling,  al- 
most to  the  total  neglect  of  the  judgment,  tends  to  produce  a 
blind  and  fiery  zeal,  that  is  not  according  to  knowledge.  Let  the 
passions  operate  independent  of  the  judgment  in  religious  matters, 
and  they  will  be  equally  ungovernable  in  the  common  aflfairs  of 
life.  Other  excitements  will  move  upon  them  as  well  as  devotional 
exercises,  and  the  person  who  is  at  no  pains  to  regulate  his  religi- 
ous affections  by  the  calm  dictates  of  an  enlightened  understanding, 
will  be  apt  to  manifest  a  quickness  of  feeling  under  the  powerful 
excitements  this  world  affords,  as  well  as  in  religious  affairs. 

Pious  reader,  mistake  me  not:  I  am  far  from  being  an  advo- 
cate for  that  stoical  formality,  that  inexcusable  and  frozen  dulness, 
which  prevails  in  too  many  professors:  but  I  wish  to  guard  against 
the  common  absurdity  of  running  into  one  extreme,  under  the  plau- 
sible pretence  of  avoiding  another.  The  speculative  and  unfeel- 
ingformalist  ought  indeed  to  be  reproved;  but  it  is  equally  necessa- 
ry to  guard  against  the  direful  influence  of  a  blind  and  ranting 
enthusiasm. 

Ifearthatmanyuprightandpious  soulsaremuch  injured  by  this 
delusion.  Conceivingthat  sensible  impressions  alone  constitute  the 
whole  of  religion,  their  confidence  and  propects  rise  and  fall  with 
their  feelings.  After  having  access  to  the  throne  of  grace,  in 
which  the  divine  manifestations  were  abundant,  they  rejoice  great- 
ly, and  consider  themselves  almost  on  the  verge  of  the  promised 
land;  but  afterwards  "for  a  season  (if  need  be)  they  are  in  heavi- 
ness through  manifold  temptations,*'  and  hastily  conclude  their 
religion  is  all  gone.  And  indeed  their  conclusion  is  very  just,  if  it 
be  true  that  religion  consists  entirely  in  happy  feelings;  but  if  it 
consist  in  the  esteem  and  integrity  of  the  mind, — in  the  Jia^ed  pur- 
poses tixid  upright  motives  of  the  soul, — as  well  as  in  the  feelings  of 
the  heart,  then  surely  the  good  man  has  no  grounds  for  desponden- 
cy, merely  because  his  feelings  are  not  lively,  while  conscious  of 
a  firm  adherence  to  God,  a  sacred  regard  to  righteous  principles, 
and  a  perpetual  detestation  of  moral  evil. 

But  alas!  many  spend  hours  of  fruitless  lamentation,  which 
carries  unbelief  iu  its  bosom,  and  borders  upon  murmuring  against 
God,  because  they  are  not  blest  with  uninterrupted  ecstacy.  Their 
3  F 


406  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

feelings  are  dull,  and  because  thej'  cannot  obfain  a  sensible  bless- 
ing  immediately,  which  shall  rouse  their  aftections  into  lively 
exercise,  they  are  ready  to  give  up  all  for  lost.  I  shall  never  for- 
get thd  case  of  a  pious  woman  on  her  dying  bed,  that  came  under 
my  own  observation;  lingering  under  the  pressure  of  a  painful 
disorder,  she  could  not  exercise  her  aftections  in  that  vigorous  and 
lively  devotion,  which  had  been  common  in  seasons  of  health:  in 
consequence  of  this  she  abandoned  hersell'to  such  despondency  and 
lamentation  as  grieved  the  hearts  of  her  family  and  religious  friends: 


to  myself  and  others,  and  seemed  deeply  interested  for  her  ever- 
lasting welfare:  she  stated  that  her  trust  was  in  God;  that  her 
soul  was  resigned  to  his  will;  that  she  loved  the  ways  of  holiness, 
and  hated  sin  as  much  as  ever;  but  w  as  doubtful  and  dejected, 
merely  for  want  of  ?ively  feelings:  upon  this  it  was  argued  by  one 
present,  that  sore  atFiiction  had  a  natural  tendency  to  depress  the 
spirit; — that  religion  did  not  consist  merely  in  feelings; — that  God 
would  never  east  off  his  people,  for  being  pressed  down  with  bodi- 
ly pain; — and  that  while  the  mind  adhered  to  God  in  principle,  was 
firm  and  upright  in  its  intentions,  and  resigned  to  the  divine  au- 
thority without  a  murmur;  tliis  was  more  acceptable  to  God  than 
the  most  passionate  ecstacies,  where  such  good  principles  were 
wanting. 

This  conversation  had  the  desired  effect;  and  being  thus  in- 
structed in  the  ways  of  the  Lord  more  perfectly,  her  dejection  van- 
ished, and  in  a  few  days  afterwards  she  calmly  resigned  her  spirit 
into  the  hands  of  God,  in  full  confidence  of  his  everlasting  com- 
placency. 

Whencearose  her  unnecessary  grief.?  From  the  mistaken  notion 
here  opposed,  namely,  that  the  exercise  and  improvement  of  the 
understanding  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  religion;  but  that  it 
consists  entirely  in  the  feelingsof  the  heart.  This  fatal  error  leads 
persons  to  nourish  their  ignorance,  and  to  make  a  merit  of  it;  and 
they  not  only  neglect  the  improvement  of  their  own  minds,  but 
discourage  and  despise  all  attempts  to  acquire  and  communicate 
knowledge  above  their  own  standard.  I  want  none  of  your  specula- 
tive knowledge  and  improvements  of  the  head,  say  they;  give  me 
the  religion  of  the  heart.  As  if  the  head  or  the  understanding  was 
not  the  gift  of  God,  as  well  as  the  heart  or  affections!  Will  God 
be  pleased  with  those  warm  devotees,  for  charging  him  with  the 
absurdity  of  giving  liis  creatures   an   understanding  for  nothing? 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  407 

Will  he  thank  that  servant  for  saying,  Lord,  J  knew  thee  to  be  an 
inconsistent  master,  who  gave  me  an  improvable  understanding  on 
purpose  that  1  might  neglect  the  improvement  of  it;  therefore  af- 
ter strenuouslyopposing  all  carnal  reasoners  and  metaphysicians,  I 
have  buried  the  talent  of  judgment  in  a  napkin,  and  have  devoted 
my  whole  attention  to  the  feelings  of  the  heart:  '"here  take  that 
is  thine  own." 

Another  duty  belonging  to  the  right  exercise  of  the  understand- 
ing, is  that  of  reasoning.  This,  as  1  have  attempted  to  explain  it, 
signifies  the  progress  of  the  mind  from  one  truth  to  another,  by 
comparison  and  consequential  inference.  It  may  perhaps  be 
thouglit  strange  that  1  should  place  this  among  the  duties  of  the 
gospel,  which  has  been  considered  altogether  carnal,  and  there- 
fore unfit  for  the  spiritual  warfare.  And  indeed,  if  we  may  judge 
.from  what  has  been  sometimes  suggested  by  certain  divines,  it 
would  seem  that  reasoning  is  so  far  from  being  a  moral  duty,  that 
it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  it  ought  to  be  tolerated.  Those 
metaphysical  souls,  it  may  be  said,  who  make  such  a  mighty  stir 
about  their  consequences  and  rational  conclusions,  are  so  far  from 
discharging  a  religious  duty,  that  it  is  a  practice  which  may  bare- 
ly be  allowed,  but  which  can  never  be  considered  as  the  discharge 
of  a  moral  obligation. 

If  so,  it  is  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference  whether  men  use  their 
reason,  or  entirely  neglect  it.  Of  course  God^ave  man  the  power 
to  reason,  merely  that  he  might  use  it  as  a  plaything,  or  neglect 
it  at  his  option,  as  a  matter  that  has  no  relation  to  moral  duty!  It 
is  a  shame  to  insult  heaven  in  this  manner;  and  I  think  the  conclu- 
sion is  very  clear,  that  every  man  in  the  world,  possessing  the  pow- 
er to  reason,  is  morally  bound  to  exercise  it,  as  he  is  to  read  the 
bible,  or  to  pray  for  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Not  that  eve- 
ry man  is  bound  to  learn  the  artificial  rules  of  logic;  but  to  use  his 
thinking  powers,  to  the  best  advantage,  to  acquire  all  useful 
knowledge.  Many  have  reasoned  most  conclusively,  who  never 
read  a  treatise  on  logic,  or  who  never  even  heard  of  such  a  trea- 
tise: and  be  it  remembered,  that  "it  is  accepted  according  to  that 
a  man  hath,  not  according  to  that  he  hath  not." 

A  third  duty  is  that  of  recollection;  or  that  active  exertion  of 
the  mind  which  is  necessary  to  impress  and  retain  useful  truths  in 
the  viemory.  Those  who  neglect  to  obtain  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  those  who  neglect  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  are  alike 
responsible  and  inexcusable.  "Only  take  heed  to  thyself,  and 
keep  thy  soul  diligently,  lest  thou  forget  the  things  which  thine 


408  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

eyes  have  seen,  and  lest  they  depart  from  thy  heart  all  the  days 
of  thy  life."  Deut.  iv.  9.  "Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  lest  ye/or- 
get  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God."  Verse  23.  "The  M'icked 
shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and  all  the  nations  that  forget  God." 
Psalm  ix.  17. 

The  fourth  and  last  duty  vve  will  mention,  as  belonging  to  the 
understanding,  is  that  of  caizier  in  all  our  judgments. 

Without  this,  all  our  attention,  reasoning  and  recollection,  M'ill 
be  unavailing;  for  prejudice  naturally  blinds  the  soul,  and  hardens 
the  mind  against  conviction.  1  presume  it  has  done  more  to  ob- 
str'.ict  the  progress  of  truth,  and  to  involve  the  world  in  darkness 
and  barbarism,  than  Satan  or  his  emissaries,  would  be  able  to  do 
without  its  assistance.  Yet  many  professors  of  religion  have  in- 
dulged it  without  scruple;  and  narrow-hearted  bigotry,  accompa- 
nied with  a  blind  and  passionate  attachment  to  a  party,  has  too 
often  passed  for  a  becoming  firmness  to  the  truth,  and  a  commen- 
dable zeal  for  the  Lord  God  of  Hosts.  And  this  bigoted  partiality, 
instead  of  being  viewed  according  to  its  real  nature,  as  a  crime  of 
the  deepest  dye,  has  been  permitted  to  assume  the  semblance  of 
virtue,  or  to  pass  as  a  matter  of  indifierence  that  may  well  accord 
with  high  attainments  in  religion. 

The  reason  this  monster  has  been  tolerated,  and  cordially  che- 
rished in  the  bosom  of  our  churches,  1  take  to  be  this:  we  have 
got  into  the  habit  of  .thinking  that  the  support  of  all  truth,  and  all 
virtue  and  excellence,  depends  upon  the  support  of  our  particular 
parties;  and  finding  bigoted  souls  among  qs  very  warm  and  zeal- 
ous in  the  defence  of  our  party,  the  inference  steals  upon  us  im- 
perceptibly, that  such  a  spirit  is  indispensable,  without  which  our 
cause  cannot  be  defended  against  the  powerful  and  violent  attacks 
of  our  opposcrs.  We  condemn  partiality  and  bigotry  on  the  other 
side;  but  who  can  find  in  his  heart  to  check  its  progress,  M'heu  it 
is  warmly  engaged  in  a  cause  so  dear  to  his  own  soul?  a  cause  too, 
on  whicli,  in  his  imagination,  the  welfare  of  the  unit  crse  depends.-* 
Our  party,  we  imagine,  comprehends  all  truth,  purity  and  excel- 
lence of  every  kind;  while  the  other  party,  and  all  who  adhere  to 
it,  are  most  wretchedly  involved  in  error  and  wickedness.  If  we 
can  find  no  evidence  to  prove  their  bad  deeds,  we  will  believe 
without  evidence;  or  if  their  conduct  be  correct,  we  will  judge 
their  motives  and  designs,  and  thus  impute  the  deej>est  crimes  to 
them,  according  to  our  sovereign  pleasure.  Mean  time  our  own 
partizans  are  to  be  believed  in  every  thing  they  say,  without  scru- 
ple and  without  examination.    Our  cause  is  so  pure  that  it  is  ri- 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  409 

dieulous  and  insufferable  for  the  least  suspicion  to  be  indulged 
concerning  it,  or  any  part  of  it.  It  must  be  defended  at  every  ha- 
zard, and  every  thing  in  the  world  must  be  made  subservient  to  its 
support  and  establishment.  The  plain  English  of  all  this  is,  that 
our  party  is  the  god  we  are  resolved  to  worship:  he  is  :a  god  too, 
that  is  to  be  supported  at  the  expense  of  every  moral  principle: 
If  the  popularity  of  our  cause  can  be  supported  by  telling  the 
truth,  it  is  very  well;  but  if  not,  it  must  be  done  by  falsehood  and 
deceit.  If  it  can  he  supported  consistently  with  justice  and  die 
general  welfare,  be  it  so;  but  if  not,  the  common  dictates  of  good- 
ness must  be  neglected,  and  the  rights  ofopposers  must  be  assail- 
ed by  tyranny  and  persecution. 

But  partiality  is  not  the  only  cause  of  bias  or  prepossession 
against  the  evidence  of  truth.  Our  indolence,  our  passions,  and 
the  pride  of  opinioa,  often  influence  us  to  be  uncandid,  and  to  love 
darkness  rather  than  light.  This  uncandid  disposition,  when  long 
indulged,  produces  an  habitual  obstinacy  that  triumphs  over  the 
dictates  of  reason  and  judgment,  and  thus  despoils  God's  rational 
creatures  of  that  intellectual  discernment,  which  was  intended 
chiefly  to  distinguish  them  from  the  brute  creation.  The  under- 
standing becomes  at  length  so  eftectually  blinded  by  prejudice, 
that  the  miserable  soul  is  brought  into  a  state  of  slavery,  and  is 
influenced,  as  the  prophet  speaks,  to  "put  bitter  for  sweet,  and 
sweet  for  bitter;  to  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness.'' 
Prejudice  is  a  great  sin,  because  it  is  directly  opposite  to  pifty. 
Truth  is  one  of  the  moral  attributes  of  God:  he  has  given  us  judg- 
ing faculties,  and  demands  the  diligent  and  candid  exercise  o( 
them,  that  truth  may  thereby  be  understood  and  enjoyed;  there- 
fore he  who  voluntarily  indulges  prejudice,  opposes  the  infiuenco 
of  truth,  and  consequently  is  fighting  against  one  of  the  moral  at 
tributes  of  his  Maker. 

Prejudice  is  contrary  to  justice:  it  leads  us  to  judge  others 
rashly,  whenever  they  presume  to  advance  any  thing  contrary  to 
our  darling  opinions:  and  human  character  is  as  often  the  subject 
of  its  rash  and  blind  decisions,  as  any  other  matter.  It  produces  a 
strong  desire  to  hinder  others  from  enjoying  the  liberty  of  opinion, 
and  the  liberty  of  speech:  and  when  circumstances  admit  of  it,  this 
malevolent  desire  will  break  out  into  actual  hostility  against  these 
native  rights  of  God's  intelligent  creatures,  and  will  thus  do  ils 
uttermost  to  suppress  the  light  of  evidence,  and  fill  the  world  witli 
ignorance  and  partiality. 


4i0  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

It  is  contrary  to  benevolence,  and  to  the  common  dictates  of  hu- 
manity. It  rouses  up  the  evil  passions,  and  causes  men  to  become 
enemies  to  their  own  parents  and  children,  if  they  shall  presume 
to  differ  with  them  in  opinion.  Thus  the  father  will  be  against  the 
son,  and  the  son  against  the  father;  the  mother  against  the  daugh- 
ter, and  the  daughter  against  the  mother;  the  mother-in-law 
against  the  daughter-in-law,  and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her 
mother-in-laAV.  And  a  man's  foes  shall  be  those  of  his  own  house- 
hold. 

Thus  it  appears  that  prejudice  is  contrary  to  reason,  conscience, 
and  human  happiness:  it  opposes  the  light  of  revelation,  wages 
war  against  God,  and  tramples  upon  the  rights  of  man:  it  stifles 
the  tender  feelings  of  humanity,  sets  on  fire  the  course  of  nature, 
and  terminates  in  vengeance,  murder  and  persecution. 

And  yet,  alas!  it  has  been  prevalent  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years, even  among  those  who  profess  to  be  the  genuine  followers  of 
the  meek  and  lowly,  dispassionate  and  candid,  Saviour  of  man- 
kind. Surely  it  behooves  us  all,  as  candidates  for  a  happy  immor- 
tality, to  look  closely  into  our  own  hearts,  and  see  if  this  enemy  of 
all  righteousness  have  not  a  secret  influence  upon  our  judgment 
and  passions.  Are  we  willing  that  every  man  in  the  w  orld  should 
enjoy  the  same  right  of  private  judgment  which  we  claim  for  our- 
selves? Or  are  we  angry  at  a  man  because  he  has  the  assurance  to 
think  for  himself.?  or  because  he  will  not  make  our  party,  or  our 
favourite  leaders,  the  standard  and  criterion  of  all  his  conclusions.? 
If  so,  we  may  flatter  ourselves  with  being  high  in  religious  attain- 
ments; but  that  God  who  requireth  truth  in  the  inward  parts,  and 
consequently  a  candid  love  of  truth,  will  not  be  deceived  by  our 
pretensions,  or  approbate  us,  while  we  harbour  in  our  bosom  one 
«f  the  most  pernicious  principles  of  moral  evil. 


SECTION  V. 

Of  the  right  exercise  of  the  affections. 

The  proper  regulation  of  the  affections  is  the  next  great  duty  of 
christians.  "Set  your  aftection  on  things  above,  not  on  things  on 
the  earth."  Col.  iii.  2. 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  4li 

This  supposes  the  affections  to  be,  in  some  degree,  under  (he  con- 
trol of  our  will;  for  if  we  had  no  power  over  them,  we  might  as 
well  be  commanded  to  direct  the  course  of  the  clouds,  as  to  direct 
the  course  of  our  affections.  It  is  true,  the  spirit  of  the  living  God 
quickens  and  invigorates  our  affections,  and  by  his  reviving  in- 
fluence draws  them  to  heavenly  things;  but  this  gracious  operation 
is  intended,  not  to  destroy  our  power  or  agency,  but  to  enlarge  it: 
"for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you; — therefore  work  out  your  own 
salvation  with  fear  and  trembling." 

This  loving  spirit  "reproves  the  world  of  sin,"  and  convinces 
them  of  the  necessity  of  righteousness,  by  impressing  on  them  the 
solemnities  of  a  "judgment  to  come."     He  rouses  our  dull  minds 

from  their  criminal  supineness,  and  points  us  to   things  above. 

He  unveils  the  thunders  of  Mount  Sinai  to  the  guilty  soul,  and  ex- 
cites him  to  realize  the  horrors  of  that  hell,  for  which  he  is  pre- 
paring himself.  To  the  mourner  he  kindly  whispers  peace,  and 
gently  draws  him  to  the  bosom  of  his  father  and  his  God,  who  is 
abundantly  propitiated, and  cordiallyreconciled  to  the  humble  peni- 
tent, through  the  intercession  of  his  beloved  Son.  This  spirit  is  light 
and  joy  to  the  believer,  and  speaks  with  an  internal  voice  so  com- 
forting and  encouraging,  that  the  conscious  felicity  thence  arising, 
is  known  only  to  him  who  becomes  the  happy  subject  of  it,  and 
cannot  be  adequately  expressed  in  human  language. 

But  in  all  these  operations  our  voluntary  concurrence  is  demand- 
ed, and  we  cannot  set  our  affection  on  things  above  without  that 
vigorous  exertion  which  is  well  knoMU  to  every  christian,  and 
which  constitutes  the  chief  part  of  his  devotion  and  "piety  to 
God."  There  is  a  deep  propensity  in  our  nature  to  "mind  earthly 
things;"  and  if  a  man  would  be  earthly,  sensual  and  devilish,  he 
has  nothing  to  do  but  to  yield  himself  a  passive  slave  to  the  "lusts 
of  the  flesh,  the  lusts  of  the  eye,  and  the  pride  of  this  life,"  which 
will  regularly  carry  him  down  the  current  of  iniquity  into  the  pit 
of  destruction. 

Those  on  the  contrary  who  would  set  their  affection  on 
things  above,  must  become  active  creatures.  They  must  not 
passively  yield  to  the  influence  of  animal  motives,  but  resist  them. 
The  flesh  lusteth  and  draweth  us  down  to  earth;  but  the  spirit 
draws  against  it,  presents  reasonable  and  spiritual  motives  to  the 
•understanding,  and  calls  us  up  to  heaven.  If  we  m  ould  follow  the 
spirit,  we  must  exert  ourselves,  because  God  made  us  for  an  ac- 
tive life,  and  calls  our  faculties  into  exercise;  but  to  follow  the 
flesh  demands  no  vigorous  activity:  it  is  but  to  yield  to  the  sensual 


413  AiN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

excitement,  and  we  soon  become  proficients  in  iniquity.  Laziness 
as  naturally  tends  to  moral  corruption,  as  matter  gravitates  to  the 
centre;  and  it  is  as  vain  for  a  man  to  expect  he  will  get  to  heaven 
without  active  diligence,  as  it  is  for  the  husbandman  to  expect  to 
remove  the  weeds  out  of  his  corn-tield  by  a  few  fruitless  wishes, 
while  he  lies  prostrate  on  the  earth,  oppressed  with  the  most  piti- 
ful and  passive  indolence. 

But  let  us  consider  the  objects  of  the  good  man's  affection  more 
particularly. 

1.  God  is  the  chief  object  of  his  esteem,  love,  hope,  joy  and  con- 
fidence. "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  soul,"  Wherefore  does  the  christian  love  God.'' 
"We  love  him  because  he  first  loved  us."  That  is,  we  love  him 
because  of  his  essential  goodness,  which  has  not  only  given  us 
life,  but  all  things  richly  to  enjoy,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also 
in  that  which  is  to  come. 

2.  He  who  hates  moral  excellence  cannot  love  God,  and  he  who 
loves  a  God  of  such  perfection,  loves  him  because  he  is  thus  per- 
fect. This  love  naturally  leads  him  to  take  pleasure  in  seeing  the 
divine  beneficence  diffused  abroad,  the  more  extensively  the  bet- 
ter. It  leads  him  to  delight  in  the  exercise  of  benevolence  himself, 
and  to  encourage  and  promote  it  among  his  fellow-creatures. 

3.  He  loves  God  because  of  his  justice,  and  consequently,  he  is 
far  from  wishing  his  Maker  were  less  strict,  or  less  pure  than  he 
is.  His  law  only  demands  the  security  of  universal  right,  and 
therefore  the  good  man  can  never  consent  that  it  should  be  altered. 
The  God  whom  he  loves  sends  incorrigible  sinners  to  perdition, 
only  M'hen  it  becomes  indispensably  necessary  to  secure  the  gene- 
ral welfare;  therefore  he  can  never  consent  for  God  to  become 
less  severe  against  offenders  than  he  is,  without  departing  that 
moment  from  a  love  of  justice.  This  love  influences  him  to  hold 
sacred  the  universal  rights  of  men,  and  to  take  pleasure  in  doing 
unto  all  men  as  he  would  they  should  do  unto  him.  It  influences 
him  to  render  unto  all  their  due,  and  to  set  his  face  as  a  flint 
against  the  mean  conduct  of  sinners,  who,  setting  justice  at  defi- 
ance, violate  the  rights  of  their  Maker  by  impiety  and  idolatry; 
the  rights  of  men,  by  lying  and  fraud;  and  the  rights  of  women 
and  children  by  the  dark  and  infernal  arts  of  seduction. 

4.  He  loves  God  because  he  is  true:  consequently  he  is  diligent 
hi  the  pursuit  of  truth,  siiiccre  in  the  communication  of  it,  and 
candid  in  all  his  juilgments.  His  language  and  external  deport- 
ment always  correspond  with  the  meaning  of  his  heart;  he  abhors 


PLAN  OF  SxVLVATION.  413 

all  lying  and  dissimulation,  and  is  "an  Israelite  indeed  in   whom 
there  is  no  guile." 

4.  If  he  loves  God  hecause  of  his  being  possessed  of  such  per- 
fections, then  he  loves  all  good  men,  for  the  same  reason.  Wher- 
ever hesees  benevolence,  justiceand  truth  prevail  in  any  creature, 
he  loves  that  creature  for  his  adherence  to  these  principles.  As 
God  is  infinitely  perfect,  he  loves  him  with  supreme  attection, 
and  loves  with  a  subordinate  affection,  every  creature  in  propor- 
tion as  it  resembles  God.  Consequently,  "with  him  a  vile  person 
is  contemned;  but  he  honours  them  that  fear  the  Lord."  His 
soul  is  delighted  with  the  company  of  good  men,  and  he  says  with 
the  blessed  Redeemer,  "whosoever  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and  mo- 
ther." Of  course  he  takes  pleasure  in  frequenting  the  assemblies 
of  the  righteous,  and  his  glad  heart  cries  out  with  ecstacy,  "how 
amiable  are  thy  tabernacles,  O  Lord  God  of  hosts!  One  thing 
have  I  desired  of  the  Lord,  that  will  I  seek  after;  that  I  may 
dwell  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  my  life,  to  behold 
the  beauty  of  the  Lord,  and  to  inquire  in  his  temple."  Psalm 
xxvii.  4. 

5.  When  it  is  said  religion  consists  in  love,  it  is  to  be  careful- 
ly observed,  that  this  love  is  to  influence  all  the  facuUies  of  our 
nature.  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy 
strength."  Mark  xii.  30. 

Perhaps  no  better  comment  can  be  given  upon  this  passage,  than 
the  comment  given  by  Dr.  AVatts.  "God  must  be  loved  with  all 
the  mind,  that  is,  he  must  stand  highest  in  the  esteem  of  the  judg- 
ment. He  must  be  loved  with  all  the  soul,  that  is,  with  the  strong- 
est attachment  of  the  will  to  him:  He  must  be  loved  with  all  the 
heart,  that  is,  with  the  warmest  and  sincerest  affection:  And  he 
must  be  loved  with  all  the  strength,  that  is,  this  love  must  be  man- 
ifested by  the  utmost  exercise  and  activity  of  all  the  inferior  pow- 
ers." Discourses  on  the  love  of  God,  page  10,  H. 

When  this  love  has  a  perfect  and  uniform  influence  over  the 
human  mind,  it  leads  to  an  undeviating  conformity  to  moral  rec- 
titude in  the  exercise  of  all  our  intellectual  faculties,  aflections, 
and  bodily  members.  This  is  christian  perfection.  Gracious 
Redeemer!  when  sliall  this  pure  and  heavenly  virtue  prevail  among 
mankind.^  Alas!  Millions  are  so  far  from  following  after  it,  that  it 
is  an  object  of  their  greatest  contempt  and  detestation.  They  pur- 
sue it  with  witticism,  ridicule,  slander,  passion  and  revenge.  They 
3G 


414  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE 

despise  goodness  aud  do  their  uttermost  to  make  all  their  acquain- 
tances ashamed  of  it;  and  were  they  not  restrained  by  the  civil 
law,  they  would  gratify  their  enmity  against  God,  by  putting  good 
men  to  death,  by  the  most  excruciating  tortures  that  malicious  in- 
genuity can  devise.  History  proves  this  melancholy  truth;  and 
human  nature  remains  the  same  it  was  in  the  days  of  Nero  or 
bishop  Bonner. 

But  while  we  lament  and  mourn  for  the  general  wickedness  of 
mankind,  let  us  not  forget  to  bewail  our  own  folly,  and  to  confess 
the  innumerable  sins  of  religion  people.  Were  we  all  of  one  heart 
and  of  one  soul,  possessing  «the  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ," 
we  should  be  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners:  but  are  there  not 
many  evils  prevailing  among  christians,  and  even  among  the  min- 
isters of  Jesus  Christ.^*  How  much  ignorance  prevails  among  us, 
through  a  voluntary  neglect  of  the  means  of  knowledge?  How 
much  self-indulgence,  formality,  and  devotion  to  earthly  things? 
How  much  prejudice,  rash  judging,  fiery  zeal,  and  party  bigotry? 
"Are  not  many  of  us  "desirous  of  vain  glory,  provoking  one  another, 
envying  one  another?"  Have  we  not  sometimes  a  stronger  desire 
for  popularity,  than  for  the  glory  of  God  aud  the  salvation  of 
mankind?  Alas,  my  brethren,  I  fear  we  are  not  able  to  an-wer  these 
questions  in  the  negative.  "The  mystery  of  iniquity  doth  already 
-work;"  corruption  is  working  its  way  into  the  heartof  our  church- 
es, and  a  little  of  "the  old  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness,"  un- 
less it  be  speedily  removed  away  from  us,  will  ultimately  "leaven 
the  whole  lump." 

We  shall  never  be  a  wise,  a  holy,  and  a  happy  people,  till  we 
heartily  agree  in  these  four  general  rules  of  conduct. 

First,  to  lay  aside  all  indolence,  prejudice  and  bigotry,  and 
unite  our  efforts  to  improve  and  enlarge  our  knowledge  of  truth, 
by  a  diligent  and  candid  exercise  of  all  our  intellectual  faculties. 
Secondly,  to  sacrifice  all  sensual  gratifications  that  are  inconsis- 
tent with  pure  and  undefiled  religion,  give  up  all  confidence  in 
mere  formality  or  speculation,  and  set  our  affection  on  things 
above. 

Thirdly,  to  lay  aside  all  ridiculous  and  blind  devotion  to  names, 
parties,  ceremonies,  and  the  thirst  of  applause,  and  maintain  a 
perpetual  and  sacred  regard  to  the  glory  of  God,  the  general 
good  of  his  crealures,  and  oar  own  eternal  salvation. 

Fourthly,  to  lay  aside  the  fear  of  man,  the  love  of  custom, 
the  dread  of  singularity,  and  regulate  all  our  externar conduct, 
not  according  to  the  fashion,  the  general  opinion,  or  the  deeisions 


PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  415 

of  the  great  &nd  {he  honourable;  but  according  to  the  pure  and 
immutable  dictates  of  truth,  justice  and  benevolence,  as  we  may 
find  them  stated  in  the  oracles\f  God,  and  confirmed  by  the  intui- 
tive convictions  of  an  enlightened  conscience. 

While  we  foolishly  set  one  part  of  christian  righteousness  against 
another,  we  are  weakening  each  other's  hands,  and  wounding  the 
sacred  cause  of  the  Redeemer  under  pretence  of  supporting  it. 

He  that  devotes  his  whole  attention  to  the  intellectual  powers, 
to  the  neglect  of  his  affections,  is  sure  to  fall  into  a  dry  specula- 
tive formality,  or  stoicism;  a  kind  of  external  morality  that  has 
no  soul.  And  he  that  attends  entirely  to  the  affections,  to  the  ne- 
glect of  the  understanding,  is  sure  to  fall  into  a  fiery,  supersti- 
tious enthusiasm,  something  like  the  frenzy  of  Moses'  disciples 
when  "they  cast  dust  into  the  air;"  or  like  those  of  the  heathen 
goddess,  "who  tor  about  the  space  of  two  hours,  cried  great  is 
Diana  of  theEphesians." 

The  harmony  of  the  understanding  and  the  affections,  is  essen- 
tial to  the  perfect  enjoyment  and  practice  of  genuine  Christianity. 
The  enlargement  of  knowledge  furnishes  motives  to  influence  the 
will  and  affections;  expands  our  views  of  the  glory  of  God  shining 
in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  enables  us  to  give  an  answer  to 
every  one  that  asketh  us  for  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  us.— ■ 
The  lively  exercise  of  the  affections  invigorates  the  operations  of 
the  understanding,  puts  life  into  all  our  acts  of  devotion,  and 
leads  to  a  most  cordial  and  happy  union  with  God.  Pious  affec- 
tions may  well  be  considered  as  the  wings  of  the  soul,  by  which 
we  rise  above  the  influence  of  sublunary  things,  and  lay  up  our 
treasure  in  heaven.  The  understanding  may  w  ith  equal  proprie- 
ty be  considered  as  eyes  to  the  soul,  which  are  necessary  to  point 
the  course  of  the  affections,  and  direct  them  in  their  flight. 

Thisharmony  of  our  intellectual  and  active  powers  is  necessary 
to  regulate  our  conduct,  and  to  regulate  our  zeal.  If  they  be  not 
united  in  their  operations  our  conduct  will  be  partial  and  incom- 
plete, and  our  zeal  will  either  be  deficient  in  energy,  or  wild  and 
fiery  in  its  course.  Zeal  is  commonly  considered  as  a  proof  of 
piety,  and  indeed  there  can  be  no  better  evidence  of  it,  while  that 
zeal  rises  from  candor  and  humble  love;  but  a  zeal  arising  from 
superstition  and  prejudice  is  so  far  from  being  a  proof  of  piety  that 
•it  is  a  very  evident  proof  of  the  want  of  it.  "A  zeal  for  God"  that 
"is  not  according  to  knowledge,"  is  productive  of  very  danger- 
ous etFects;  hew  much  more  when  the  zeal  is  not  for  God,  but  for 
some  favorite  party,  opioion  or  ceremony?  It  is  the  very  thing  that 


416  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE,  &c. 

has  led  to  the  most  bloody  persecutions  that  ever  disgraced  the 
christian  or  the  heathen  world;  and  we  have  cause  to  be  very  jeal- 
ous of  the  first  motions  of  a  zeal  that  works  by  anger,  is  nourish- 
ed by  ignorance,  and  is  founded  on  an  implicit  devotion  to  a  party- 
But  that  soul  whose  zeal  is  regulated  by  an  enlightened  under- 
standing; nourished  by  a  calm,  dispassionate  love  of  truth;  and 
founded  upon  a  firm  adherence  to  the  moral  attributes  of  God,  is  a 
plant  of  our  heavenly  Father's  right  hand  planting,  and  shall  be 
useful  and  happy  here,  and  inherit  eternal  life  hereafter.  Being 
delivered  from  the  dark  shades  of  ignorance,  the  contracting  infliu- 
ence  of  partiality,  and  the  tyrannical  ascendency  of  appetite  or 
worldly  grandeur,  the  mind  is  free  to  think,  and  judge,  and  exercise 
its  pious  affections  without  obstruction,  in  which  consists  "the 
glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God."  Free  from  the  pitiful 
shackles  of  bigotry,  such  a  soul  enjoys  a  most  pleasant  and  revi- 
ving range  through  all  the  wonders  of  Redeeming  love.  The  attri'- 
butes,  and  works,  and  providence,  and  grace  of  God,  afford  abun- 
dant matter  for  his  pious  meditations:  His  active  mind  travels 
through  the  beauties  of  creation,  and  adores  that  beneficent 
hand  which  sends  us  ra-n  from  heaven,  and  tills  our  hearts  with 
food  and  gladness.  He  turns  to  the  pages  of  revelation,  explores 
the  opening  beauties  of  the  moral  law,  surveys  the  wonderful 
goodness  of  God  manifested  in  the  flesh;  then  rises  on  the  wings  of 
contemplation,  with  ecstacy  of  thought,  to  those  salubrious  re- 
gions of  ineffable  tranquillity,  "where  momentary  ages  are  no 
more."  His  soul  adheres  to  God,  as  to  the  centre  of  all  its  desires.  He 
finds  no  pleasure  in  existence  equal  to  that  of  doing  good.  He 
looks  over  the  face  of  the  earth,  with  conscious  friendship  for 
every  living  creature.  He  mourns  over  the  ignorance  and  wicked- 
ness of  men,  and  melts  into  sympathetic  tears,  for  the  miseries  of 
Adam's  children.  His  enlarged  and  generous  mind  embraces  the 
different  nations  of  the  earth  with  affection,  and  with  conscious 
sincerity,  beseeches  heaven  to  bless  all  his  brethren  of  the  human 
race.  May  that  great  and  good  Being  who  holds  the  destinies  of 
creation  in  his  right  hand,  inspire  us  with  these  sentiments  and 
affections!  May  his  benign  influences  subdue  the  savage  disposi- 
tions of  our  nature,  and  inspire  the  heart  of  man,  with  brotherly 
love  to  man!  May  his  truth  shine  and  enlighten  the  nations,  his 
spirit  reform  them,  and  his  goodness  save  them  from  the  bitter 
pains  of  the  second  death!  "to  God  only  wise,  be  glory  througli 
Jesus  Christ  forever,"  Amen. 

FINIS. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 
INTRODUCTION,  .  .  .  .  .         v 

CHAPTER  I. 

iSPON  THE  METHOD  ESTABLISHED  BY  THE  CREATOR,  THROUGH 
WHICH  MANKIND  ARE  TO  DISTINGUISH  TRUTH  FROM  FALSE- 
HOOD. 

Sect.  I.  A  general  view  of  truth  and  evidence,        -        -  11 
Sect.  II.  Concerning  the  several  sonrces   of  our  knowledge, 

and  first,  of  those  principles  which  are  self-evident,     -  16 

Sect.  III.  Two  objections  answered,      -            -             -  27 

Sect.  IV.  Of  the  evidence  of  reason,             -             -             -  40 

Sect.  V.  Of  the  evidence  of  revelation,                -             -  54 
Sect.  VI.  The    connexion     between    those    three    sources 

of  evidence,  and  their  dependence  upon  each  other,       -  66 

Sect.  VII.  Of  analogy  and  presumption,             -             -  90 

Sect.  VIII.  Four  defective  rules  of  judgment  examined,     -  101 
Sect.  IX.  The  necessity   and  safety  of  a  diligent  pursuit  of 

truth,        ------  113 

Sect.  X.  The  tjecessity  and  safety  of  a  diligent  communica- 
tion of  truth,    -             -             -             -             -             -  120 

Sect.  XI.  Whether  certain  errors  ought  to  be  believed  for  the 

sin,       -         -             -            -  isy 

CHAPTER  II. 

UPON  THE  NATURE  AND  GROUNDS  OF  REDEMPTION. 

Sect.  I.  A  view  of  the  Divine  Attributes,  -  -  -      133 

Sect.  II.  Sin  dishonours  God,  and  destroys  the  happiness  of 
his  creatures;  therefore  his  displeasure  against  it  must 
be  manifested,        -----  147 

Sect.  III.  The  attributes  of  God  were  glorified  in  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,   -  -      153 


CONTENTS. 

Sect.  IV.  An  examination  of  two  opposite  prejudices,  founded 

upon  mystery,         ...  -  -  lei 

Sect.  V.  The   doctrine  of  redemption  stated  in  the  words  of 

several  respectable  authors,    -  -  -  -       171 

Sect.  VI.  The  testimony  of  eminent  Calvinislic  Divines,  178 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DIRECT  EVIDENCE  OF  REASON  AND  REVELATION,  IN  DEFENCE 
OF  THE  DOCTRINE  STATED  IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER. 

Sect.  I.  A  brief  view  of  the  nature  of  forgiveness,  -       186 

Sect.  H.  The  nature  of  justice  and  benevolence  considered,  in 

their  relation  to  each  other,  _  .  -  194 

Sect.  III.  An  objection  answered,  -  -  .       200 

Sect.  IV.  The  fitness,  importance  and  necessity  of  redemp- 
tion, -..--.  503 
Sect.  V.  The  same  subject,  -  _  _'  -  311 
Sect.  VI.  The  same  subject,  -  -  .  -  sis 
Sect.  VII-  The  same  subject,  -  -  -  -  232 
Sect.  VIII.  The  two  systems  of  redemption,  tested  by  the  na- 
tive consequences  which  flow  from  them,  -  339 
Sect.  IX.  Our  system  harmonizes  the  doctrines  and  clears  up 

many  diSicult  passages  of  revelation,  -  -       248 

Sect.  X.  The  plain  scripture  testimony,  concerning  redemp- 
tion, reconciled  with  the  metaphors  which  represent  it 
as  a  purchase,       ...  -  -  259 

CHAPTER  IV. 

AN     EXAMINATION   OF     SOME    GENERAL    OBJECTIONS      CONNECTED 
WITH    OTHER  DOCTRINES  OF  RELIGION. 

Sect.  I.  Of  the  full  display  of  eternal  justice,  -         -       267 

Sect.  II.  The  supposed  necessity  of  sin  to  make  redemption 

necessary,  .....  275 

Sect.  III.  The  supposed  violation  of  truth,  -  -       279 

Sect.  IV.  Moral  principles  in  the  Deity  are  not  different  from 

those  which  are  to  govern  his  creatures,         -         -  283 

Sect.  V.  The  infinity  of  Christ's  atonement  considered,  -  290 
Sect.  VI.  A  statement  of  the  doctrineof  original  sin,  in  reply 

to  the  charge,  that  our  system  denies  it,        -         -  294 


CONTENTS. 

Sect.  VII.  A  view  of  the  principal  arguments  by  which  infant 

guilt  is  defended,         -  -  -  -  _       30^ 

Sect.  VIII.  Infants  are  not  guilty  on  account  of  their  natural 

passions,  or  propensities  to  evil,      -  -  .  819 

Sect.  IX.  Of  man's  natural  inability  to  do  good,         -        -       337 
Sect.  'X.  A  consequence  of  the  doctrine  established  in  the 
foregoing  sections,  that  death  is  necessary  in  the  case  of 
infants,  but  is  not  a  penalty,  -  .  .  334, 

Sect.  XI.  Second  consequence,       -  -  .  »       350 

Sect.  XII.  Of  the  Divine  Sovereignty,         -         -        .  359 

Sect.  XIII.  The  same  subject,      -  -  -  -      365 

CHAPTER  V. 

©F    THE     MEANS     OR    CONDITIONS    THROUGH  WHICH  WE  RECEIVE 
THE  BENEFITS  OF  CHRIST's   ATONEMENT. 

Sect.  I.  A  general  view  of  faith,           -             -             .  373 
Sect.  II.  Of  faith  as  the  condition  of  our  acceptance  or  justifi- 
cation,            -              -             -             -             -             -  S81 

Sect.  III.  Whether  faith  depends  upon  the  will,  -  393 

Sect.  IV.  Of  the  right  exercise  of  the  understanding,         -  403 

Sect.  V.  Of  the  right  exercise  of  the  aft'ections,    -        -  410 


ERRATA. 


Page  68,  line  16,  after  the  word  that  read  it. 

Page  77,  line  17,  for  reasonable  read  reasoning. 

Page  80,  Vine  "iO,  for  represent  re-Ad  represents. 

Page  81,  line  '60,  for  conclusion  read  conclusions. 

Page  83,  line  18,  omit  the  word  that. 

Page  95,  line  27,  for  the  word  was  read  were. 

Page  99,  line  17,  for  has  read  have. 

Page  100,  line  38,  for  then  read  than. 

Page  157,  line  37,  omit  the  word  and. 

Page  24:3,  line  15,  for  christian  read  christian's. 

Page  246,  line  8,  for  Zyon  read  Zion. 

Page  254,  line  30,  for  where  read  were. 

Page  299.  line  38,  for  not  read  nor. 

Page  383,  line  31,  for  genuing  read  genuine. 

N.  B.  Many  particular  or  emphatieal  sentences,  which  were 
intended  to  be  put  in  italicks,  have  been  (by  mistake)  enclosed  in 
eommas  as  quotations. 


i 


'ft 


ff 


